Econolog: Agnostics for Pacifism
A striking observation from my childhood friend Ghassan Bridi:
Had we never invaded Iraq, we may have seen the people of Iraq today take to the streets and topple a despotic dictator in the second most populous Arab country on this planet… and not one American life would have been lost, no where near 1 million Iraqi lives lost, not one dollar spent, and AT LEAST a fourth of our national debt would have been non-existent. …
Are they right to claim credit? I don't know – and neither do they. The hard truth is that predicting the effects of war is extremely difficult. …
… By itself, I freely admit, extreme uncertainty is a double-edged sword. The consequences of war might be worse than you thought; they might be even better. But as I've argued in my common-sense case for pacifism, pacifists just need to add the weak moral premise that "before you kill innocent people, you should be reasonably sure that your action will have very good consequences." This plausible premise, combined with the uncertainty of foreign affairs, creates an almost insurmountable presumption against war. …
Agnosticism and humility in the face of extreme uncertainty apply not only to war and nation-building. It also applies to many other things, like directing national economies or managing climate change. In cases with considerable risk and uncertainty, prudence is frequently preferable to either inaction or radical change.
Leave a Reply