| I remember taking a course in ethical philsophy in college, in which one of John Stuart Mill's books was part of the required reading (can't remember which one, though) -- and this statement does seem in general to be in keeping with what Mill proposed. However, based on what I know of Mill's model, I would be inclined to think that this quote was deliberately being used at least somewhat out of context if someone tried to use it in order to justify the war in Iraq -- especially since another famous quote by Mill makes it pretty clear which side of the political floor he stood!
All through the course, my professor used a particular hypothetical example in order to demonstrate the differences between the perspectives of the different philosophers were studied. There is a locomotive running on a railroad track, and its braking system has failed. The engineer has no power to stop the train before it reaches the junction, but will only be able to steer the train onto one or the other of two tracks. The engineer also knows that there are men working on both sections of track...two men on the right-hand track, and five on the lefct-hand track. He also knows that one of the two men working the right-hand track is his brother. Regardless of which track the engineer takes, all the people working that track will be killed -- so which track should the engineer take? According to Mill, the greatest good for the greatest number is always the more ethical choice...and under those conditions, the engineer is obligated to take the right-hand track knowing that he will bring about the death of his own brother in the process. If you alter the model slightly so that the right-hand track is empty but the engineer will lose his own life if he turns that way, Mill would most likely say that the engineer is nevertheless obliged to take the right-hand track -- regardless of the character or the relationships between the persons involved, it is better that one or two die than it is to have five die.
On the surface, the original quote would seem to coincide with Mill's belief in the greatest good for the greatest number -- that it is better for a certain number of men to die in battle in order to prevent the entire nation from perishing. In the same spirit, however, I think Mill would also be inclined to argue in favor of thoroughly exploring all other reasonable options by which war might potentially be avoided. Plausible arguments could be made for either side regarding what Mill's beliefs regarding the war in Iraq would be if he were alive today -- perhaps depending largely on whether or not he believed the prediction regarding what the response from the rest of the Arab states and the terrorist organizations was likely to be. My guess is that notwithstanding his political leanings, he might have been in support of the war initially -- but as time wore on and it became apparent that things were not what other people had originally claimed and/or believed them to be, he could also have changed his mind. There is another famous quote of his, however, which leads me to suspect that he would be more inclined to distrust GWB than to support him...
"I never meant to say that conseratives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally conservatives." |
