Syria

President Obama is currently contemplating taking military measures against the Syrian government due to the horrifying chemical attacks on its own people. While I am sure that he is taking his time to consult  his military staff I can't help wondering is the President is also considering the ethical grounds for lobbing missiles into Syria. 

Military action is liable to kill many innocent bystanders. The only ethical defense for military action would be just war and it does not meet the major principle of proportionality: Is there likely less harm to innocents than doing nothing? Given the bloody history of American intervention, our good intentions usually end badly and with all the problems made considerably worse. American intervention comes across as being imperialistic and makes all sides hate us.

 Kant's Categorical Imperative asks us, "Could we will this course of action universally. in all like situations? If the answer is."No" then don't engage militarily.  If the answer is "Yes" then the next question is this: What is the real reason for military intervention? Is it truly for the the benefit of the Syrian people or is it some other, less noble reason, like oil or to help Israel's regional domination? If it is these latter reasons then more questions need answers: Can we really support Israel's hard line on all it's neighbors? Do we close our eyes and let Israel dictate our actions in the region? Those are but two of the many questions which need answers before we even THINK of taking military action in Syria. I believe that military action is rarely justified and for that reason, I oppose hurling missiles at Syria. 

* I realize that this short essay is very incomplete. My intent was not  do a complete ethical analysis but was meant to raise some of the questions which should be asked before taking the big leap into the abyss of  "helpful destruction".