PHL 212 Current Events 11/20/03 The ongoing war with Iraq has put a huge dent financially, physically, and emotionally on the people of the United States. President George Bush's intentions are to put an end to terrorism and introduce democracy to the Middle East. Bush signed a bill for 87. 5 billion dollars supporting the so-called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which will aid in the rebuilding of Iraq and parts of Afghanistan.
It is, however, quite obvious that the soldiers out there are not living in decent conditions. The people of the United States are investing a good percentage of hard-earned tax dollars to reconstruct a nation for quite possibly the wrong reasons, without even being provided proper living arrangements. Bush's true purpose of reconstruction is unclear at times. Is our country there with the hopes of making a better environment for these people or is this country just power and oil hungry? The Undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) Chief Financial Officer Dov S. Zakheim adds fuel to this fiery debate, when he makes the claim that "billions of dollars will be spent on electricity, water, health, and getting the oil industry 'up to speed.' " It, in fact, seems that whenever an issue from the Middle East arises, the word "oil" always makes an appearance.
Oil is a huge commodity for the U. S. because so many people rely on it to survive. The fact that Iraq is restraining us from it makes our country more determine to get our hands on it.
So if Iraq cuts the United States off from something so valuable, would it not make sense that we would go and try to "build up the constitutional system?' " Zakheim also states that by taking these actions and exposing these people to this kind of environment, the Iraqis will be more open to a democracy, resulting in an improvement of their lives. Kant claims that one's motives can determine whether or not one is ethical or not. If one performs an action because they think that it is the right thing to do, then they are considered morally good. On the other hand, if one's decisions were based on an inclination (or actions that are based on personal desire), then this person would not be considered morally good. Based on these Kantian beliefs, it would be obvious that President Bush would be considered unethical, argot his desires for helping the people Iraq are not genuine.
It is often considered that Bush's choice to reform the Middle East in order to gain more power and oil has to do with making our country wealthier. Kant believes that "a good will isn't a good will because of the effect it produces, but because of its intention to follow universal law." The central issue here is based primarily on President George Bush's primary conditions for our presence in the Middle East, namely Iraq. For many that have been persuaded by the President's numerous speeches on the ethical conditions for aid, then Kant would be in complete agreement. However, many who possess gut instincts derived from our human nature, feel as though his purpose is deeper than the Iraqi people's ability to elect a government. It lies in his insatiable desire for widening the gap between richer and poorer nations. That belief would have Kant label the "leader of the free world" as unethical and who is morally unsound..