Iraq to allow inspections to continue. Agreements have been broken, sanctions and diplomacy didn't rectify the problem so it follows that force may be needed to bring about compliance to UN resolutions and agreements. But there are consequences to firing missiles into Baghdad. By firing missiles into a densely populated city like Baghdad, there is a tremendous risk of civilian casualties ranging from an estimated minimum of a few hundred to the worst case of ten thousand civilian causalities. But, for the United States government, the question is utilitarian: "how can we, in the long term, save the most lives?" In other words, the greatest good for the greatest number. Clearly, the answer to this question, from the government's view, is that it is better to risk the potential sacrifice of ten thousand Iraqi civilian lives in order to prevent an even greater loss of life if Iraq were to use its weapons of mass destruction again. By doing a cost benefit analysis, the government would find it better for ten thousand rather than ten million die. the government have the right to place such a value on human life? Are ten thousand Iraqis worth less than ten thousand or ten million Israelis or Americans? Fyodor Dostoevsky's reply to the government's "official rational" is definitive. No. Neither the government nor any one person has the right to place a market value on human life, otherwise they are playing God. Dostoevsky would justify this by claiming that like science and Christianity, utilitarianism is just another story we tell about how to live and make decisions. Neither story is more true than the other, but utilitarianism isn't the best story to tell. For Dostoevsky, Christianity makes more sense. Not only do the ten commandments dictate that it is wrong to kill for any reason (and Dostoevsky was a pacifist) but, by taking the life of another, we are bringing about judgment on another human being and only God can bring about judgment on man. Furthermore, Dostoevsky believes that to be moral we must have unconditional love for others. While the government bases what would be in the best interest of man on "such advantages as happiness, prosperity, freedom, security, and all that. . . when listing human advantages [government] insists on leaving out one of them. They never allow for it, thus invalidating all their calculations. One would think it would be easy just to add it to the list. But that's where the trouble lies--it doesn't fit into any scale or chart" (Dostoyevsky 1961, pg. 106). What is this advantage? "The key phrase is 'Love others as you lover yourself'" (Dostoyevsky 1961, pg.225); it is nothing more than unconditional love. Just as Liza in The Notes From Underground Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov |