There is the philosophical question: if a tree falls in the
forest and there is no one to see it or hear it, did the tree fall? Well, there
may or may not be an answer to this question to satisfy everyone, but there are
other questions that can be thought of as related in the sense that a choice is
called for, which require that an answer be given because morality depends on
it.
To see this, we take the fictitious example of hard times
plaguing the countryside where a number of farmers have committed suicide.
Peter lost most of his herd, and is thinking of killing himself if things do
not improve soon. Before long, news reach him that his neighbor has committed
suicide and has left a note saying he leaves his farm and everything in it to
Peter and his family who should have a better chance getting through the hard
times by combining the resources of the two farms.
You can imagine the conflicting emotions that Peter is going
through as a result of this event. On the one hand, he knows that he and his
family will now have a better chance of making it through the hard times. On
the other hand, he lost a friend that was so nice and so dear to the family; he
did not deserve to die. And there is also the fact that he will no longer be
tempted to commit suicide.
But then Peter learns that the neighbor tried to commit
suicide and did not succeed. Someone found him and took him to hospital where
he remains in critical condition with a fifty-fifty chance that he may live or
die. And so, Peter takes the family in the car and drives to the hospital to
see their friend and neighbor. And they cannot help but discuss the subject in
a way that sounds odd even to them.
What they try to settle is the question: What ought to be an
appropriate emotional state. Should they wish that the neighbor – who is only
one person – survive whereby things will go back to being bleak again for
everyone? Or should they wish that he dies so that things may brighten for
them?
When we think about the philosophical implications of all
the above, the last example forces us to realize – like Peter's family – that
the choices we make when the well being or survival of human beings is
involved, count more than a tree falling in the forest. We can live not knowing
whether a tree has or has not fallen but we cannot live while ignoring a
situation in which human life or well being is in the balance.
This brings us to the article written by Brian M. Welke, a
veteran of the Iraq War. He wrote it under the title: “Was Iraq Worth It? It
Was for Me” and the subtitle: “It was in the sands of Ramadi that I learned
most people want to be masters of their own fate.” It was published on August
21, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.
As shown in the title, Welke says that the Iraq War was
worth it to him. He later explains that regardless of what happens to Iraq now, the
answer remains the same because “a sacrifice's worth is not determined by
outcomes.” Yes, the current events in that country tell him that his efforts have
been rejected by the locals, and it pains him, but “there is a far greater
feeling that outshines the pain: Pride.” This said, he devotes the rest of the
article talking about the sacrifices that America has made to liberate other
peoples, and the pride that he feels as an American in this legacy.
What we need to do now is try to identify the differences
that may exist between the emotional state of Peter in our fictitious story,
and that of Brian in the real story.
We discover that while Peter's neighbor seems to have done
an altruistic act that is an end in itself, Brian is a self-centered individual
that thrives on the feeling of being needed by others. He draws pride from
being able to respond to the call for help even when that help is later rejected.
Given this set of realities, it is obvious that the war
which is “worth it” to Brian for personal reasons is not to the people of Iraq whose life
and limb continue to hang in the balance everyday to this day.