The Morality of the War on Terror

        The ‘heroes’ in Team America seem to be driven entirely by what they believe to be moral. Their morality does not seems to adhere to any specific moral philosophy we have discussed, instead it is a muddled mixture of several.

It most closely resembles utilitarianism. Results are paramount to Team America. As long as they have accomplished their original objective, they are satisfied. Interestingly they are blind to consequences outside of their goal. Their ignorance of the massive collateral damage that marks their trail is exemplified repeatedly when the team accidentally destroys ancient and invaluable landmarks. In Paris, they topple the Eiffel Tower. In Cairo they behead the Sphinx and demolish one of the great pyramids.

            Consequentialism does not fully encapsulate the morality of Team America, for they ignore the broad and unintended consequences of their actions. They simply are seeing their original intent through to the end. The actions of the team are based in a duty to their nation and its ideals. Unfortunately, they do not really concern themselves with the specifics of American ideals, they really function off blind patriotism. Their ignorance means that duty to a set of ideals, becomes duty to the nation, which their lack of moral intelligence transforms into simple adherence to the orders of their supervisor. In a way, Team America’s moral philosophy is deontological; they have placed a lot of emphasis on the idea of duty, and the goodness of their intent is their only defense against the gross collateral damage they cause. In no way are they subscribers to Kant’s most basic principle, the categorical imperative. Team America perceives itself as an elite team above the rules of normal society because they are uniquely equipped to protect America. They operate as if they are on a separate moral plane from everyone else. None of their actions could be construed as universal law.

            The morality of Team America incorporates parts of multiple moral philosophies, but these parts are incompatible and misunderstood. The consequentialism they demonstrate is very narrow. They do not account for the full range of their actions’ consequences. The duty-based justification of their actions is also problematic because their duty is not to a set morality but to the abstract notion of their nation and the orders of their superiors. So, ultimately, their misunderstanding of moral concepts leaves them without morality.

            The exaggerated and literally cartoonish presentation of Team America serves to make the moral issues of America’s comportment in the recent wars. Team America shows us that the moral rationale behind these wars is confused and indefensible. 

            My opinion on the war is also an agglomeration of deontology and consequentialism. It seems that a just war must be based in the ideas of deontology. For example, the rebellion in V For Vendetta is just because it is based upon the duty of those citizens to preserve their own freedom. If they had chosen to remain docile it would be the same as morally affirming the actions of their government. A just war must be based upon a basic moral duty to preserve one’s life and freedom. Once a war has begun, it seems best to proceed with consequentialism, which overall is a much more flexible form of morality. Consequentialism simply appears to be best strategically. Success in battle is based upon outcome, not intent.

            One thing Team America strives to highlight is ambiguity of intent within this war. Many Americans believe the initial response to be justified, but the continuation of this war and the ephemeral nature of the enemy have bankrupted the morality of this conflict. This war is questionable in terms of both discussed moralities: deontology, and utilitarianism. The generally cited reason for the continuation of the war is our duty to destroy terrorism. Of course, terrorism is not a tangible enemy. Who and what we are fighting is hard to grasp. The war on terror takes place on the streets of foreign nations, not on battlefields. Soldiers face bombs, not the approaching enemy front. Our intent and duty in entering this war are unclear. The rationale has changed, which according to deontological reasoning for a just war, it should not.  The utilitarianism that should govern the battlefield is difficult to implement in this war because without a solid and comprehensible enemy, it is next to impossible to determine the consequences of this war, let alone measure their outcomes against perceived gains. The ambiguity of terror as an enemy leaves us without closure, for it is impossible to know when and where the enemy will fall, or even if it is possible to defeat terror. Without closure, we cannot judge consequence, and thus this war appears fruitless and amoral.