Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Haliburton Ethical?

Rate this topic


Ragnar69

Recommended Posts

Two-part question:

One, do you think Haliburton was able to influence the U.S. administration to start the war/fighting in Iraq to make a profit?

Second, if you answered yes to the above question, is this ethical under Objectivist principles? If you answered no to the above question, is it ethical for Haliburton to use the existing military conflict to make a profit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you are talking about Halliburton.

One, do you think Haliburton was able to influence the U.S. administration to start the war/fighting in Iraq to make a profit?

Of course not. It took years even for Saddam Hussein to make the U.S. administration start an offensive, even though he was asking for it in pretty unequivocal terms!

If you answered no to the above question, is it ethical for Haliburton to use the existing military conflict to make a profit?

What is unethical is that American taxpayers' money is used in the rebuilding of Iraq. So the question should be: "Is it ethical for a company to accept taxpayers' money as payment for its products and services?" This is covered under the same principle as government scholarships: as long as you support capitalism and are opposed to wealth redistribution by the government, you are among the victims of such redistribution and may morally accept government money as a restitution for the damages caused to you. The immorality begins when you say, "Hey, I like these government handouts! Let's have more of them! Let's raise taxes so I can get more!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if (I don’t know if this applies in this case) your primary source of revenue is improper government activities – such as rebuilding Iraq? That’s not quite the same as a book seller who occasionally sells to public libraries and universities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I might have asked the wrong questions. Aside from whether or not Halliburton started the war, and for the moment I'll accept that they didn't, my problem with them is really that there seems to me to be one of two likely scenarios - one is that the Bush administration actually cares about the people of Iraq. This I find laughably implausible. The second possibility is that people in power are making money off of the war, and there's no other good reason for us to still have troops there. So, in effect, there are American soldiers dying so their superiors can make money. They are there under the guise of "safeguarding freedom," or whatever the spin doctors are calling it, which is a load of bull. If that is what is really going on, then that is what I would find unethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of a reason for the American military to be in Iraq: To defeat all of the Islamic terrorists and their supporters who operate out of that country, like Al Queda.

The rebuilding of Iraqi oilfields, as far as I know, is not being paid for by taxpayers, is it? I thought companies paid and competed for the contracts. Why would the government need to pay a company to operate in one of the most economically lucrative industries on the planet? They should be able to turn profits from drilling oil fairly easily.

I see no problem with the US seizing any oilfield in the Middle East (apart from Israel) and picking an American company to resume production. These dictatorships have no right to the oil, which was owned by Western companies until it was nationalized in the first place. Infact, they have no rights at all, and it would be in America's interest to topple the governments while using valuable resources like oil to help recompensate us for the wars they've declared on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[My problem with them is really that there seems to me to be one of two likely scenarios - one is that the Bush administration actually cares about the people of Iraq. This I find laughably implausible.

Why do you find this implausible? I find it likely that they "care" more about the "Iraqi people" than about the Americans that they're subjecting to a needlessly long war. Haven't you been paying attention to the numerous cries that we have to be careful not to hurt Iraqi civilians? That we can't afford to injure Muslim sensibilities? That we shouldn't bomb a mosque? (Fortunately they got over that one.)

Bush has demonstrated that he's a pragmatist, so he's easily pushed around by the people who "care" about every damn thing from prescription drugs to Iraqi "freedom fighters" . . . anything except actual Americans who just want to be left alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that it is frowned upon to bomb a country (no matter how well you aim the bombs) and not rebuild it. Not that America should worry about every whim of the United Nation or any foreign power for that matter, but the way I see it is that we want at least some semblance of a relationship with foreign nations in order to have allies and do other such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one is that the Bush administration actually cares about the people of Iraq. This I find laughably implausible. The second possibility is that people in power are making money off of the war, and there's no other good reason for us to still have troops there.
Where in the world did you come up with these and only these two possibilities? I find your second theory laughably implausible. So let's concentrate on the first, which is closer to the truth. First, it is undeniable that Bush cares to some extent about the Iraqi people, but we have the United Way and the Red Cross to run caring charitable organisations. So caring isn't really a proper concern; and I don't really know how much his heart personally bleeds for the suffering inflicted on Iraqis by the butcher of Baghdad. In fact, Hussein was part of a real threat to the American people (though a smaller one than Syria or Iran, or Taliban Afghanistan), so it was certainly right to remove him from power. His mistake was his disintegrated "bits and pieces" view of the conflict -- he still seems to think that it's possible to coexist with Islamists, and apparently could not calculate what was going to happen in Iraq after the dictator was deposed. Maybe he expected god to intervene and hasten the second coming, I dunno.

The correct solution would have been to totally eliminate the northern no-fly zone and expand the southern no-fly zone to cover all of Iraq south of Kirkuk. This is really a matter for Iraqis to sort out, and they need to be locked in their rooms until they learn to play like grownups. I know that innocent Iraqis will get locked up with the crazies, but maybe the innocent ones can organise and form a proper government. Once they've proven that they can act like adults and won't threaten others, they can be let out of their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if (I don’t know if this applies in this case) your primary source of revenue is improper government activities – such as rebuilding Iraq? That’s not quite the same as a book seller who occasionally sells to public libraries and universities.

A rational company would try to avoid such a situation, although if they found it unavoidable, the moral responsibility would still lie with the government, not them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rebuilding of Iraqi oilfields, as far as I know, is not being paid for by taxpayers, is it?

It's not really about the oilfields, but water mains, roads, and things like that. These are financed by USAID ("U.S. Agency for International Development")--a government organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that makes sense for situations where you can't separate the proper from the improper. For example, consider a weapons dealer who supplies guns, ammo, vests, etc., to the police. Clearly there should be police, and just because some of the laws they enforce are bad doesn't make it wrong to supply them with weapons they need to enforce the good laws.

I'm not so sure, however, about a scenario which is just totally wrong under all circumstances. Again, let's consider a weapons dealer. This time, however, it is considering whether to take a government contract for weapons it knows are being sought to pursue an immoral war. This is not rebuilding, where somebody could morally do it, just not the government. This is a scenario in which it is flat out wrong. As an example, consider contracting to supply arms to Nazi Germany for its upcoming invasion.

[Edit: This is a response to post #9. Post #10 was not up yet when I was replying. ;) ]

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halliburton is just another example of how mankind fails to realize that the most important thing in life is life itself. They think its money. Well, I have news for you: it isn't. When we as a civilized world realize that war is hell and peace is bliss; that death is terrible on any scale and that life should be preserved at all times we shall end our stupid wars. But because of the deadly sins we do not realize this. The worst one today is greed. We have dug ourselves into a hole; a hole which if we do not start filling it up will eventually lead to the destruction of the entire human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in the world did you come up with these and only these two possibilities? I find your second theory laughably implausible.

I do not presume to answer for another poster, but it is standard Marxist rhetoric that capitalists start wars in order to make money. Of course, it's laughable.

For one thing, in a welfare state it's easier to scam a lot of money providing other services. There's a lot more money moving through welfare than through defense. Even iwth a war on, America's defense budget isn't that much higher in dollar amounts than it was in the 80s, while the overall federal budget has more than tripled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Two-part question:

One, do you think Haliburton was able to influence the U.S. administration to start the war/fighting in Iraq to make a profit?

Second, if you answered yes to the above question, is this ethical under Objectivist principles? If you answered no to the above question, is it ethical for Haliburton to use the existing military conflict to make a profit?

To answer the first question I need to know the degree of influence you are talking about. I'm sure Dick Cheney gave many reasons to Bush why we should go into Iraq, whether or not he had a secret motive to make money for Halliburton from the war. I don't think it would go beyond that as far as Halliburton's influence is concerned, by that I mean I doubt they put an offer on Bush's table persuading him to go in while explaining their motive.

To answer your second question, you already answered it. Is it moral to make money off the blood of others? By the blood of others i'm not referring to the terrorist groups or the Iraqi Army at the time of invasion (or however long they lasted :D ) , but the blood of our men. It is immoral to be rewarded for production at the expense of someone's life.

As to who is paying for the oil fields and reconstruction of Iraq, i don't know, but I would like to find out. I don't know too much about the situation before we invaded as far as who was in control of the oil fields, and the nationalization of them. If anyone could point me in the direction torwards another thread that divulges more on to the topic of Iraq or some interesting articles it would be greatly appreciated. I still have problems with the search function on this forum :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two-part question:

One, do you think Haliburton was able to influence the U.S. administration to start the war/fighting in Iraq to make a profit?

There has long been a close and messy relationship between government politics and the oil world in general. The idea that Halliburton was whispering into the President's ear to go to war is silly and insane. There were many many other reasons driving the US to war. It is not too unrealistic to assume that Halliburton was able to keep close tabs on events in Iraq so that it would be able to profit the most from the venture.

Second, if you answered yes to the above question, is this ethical under Objectivist principles? If you answered no to the above question, is it ethical for Haliburton to use the existing military conflict to make a profit?
Are they abusing the conflict to make a profit, or trying to make a profit in a land where there is currently conflict?

I see no problem with the US seizing any oilfield in the Middle East (apart from Israel) and picking an American company to resume production. These dictatorships have no right to the oil, which was owned by Western companies until it was nationalized in the first place. Infact, they have no rights at all, and it would be in America's interest to topple the governments while using valuable resources like oil to help recompensate us for the wars they've declared on us.

Israel has no oil anyway (though there are some Christian Fundementalist actively looking for some: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p20s01-lire.html) now that that misconception is out of the way...

The process of actually getting the oil from those dictatoships is an interesting topic. Robert Baer in "Sleeping With the Devil" discusses this issue, citing an early government research paper that investigated that very problem (done under the shadows of the OPEC emabrgo). At the end of the day, what is needed is something on the level of "sixty thousand" US troops with several more civilians being drafted to run the facilities. Major problems involved would be terrorism spikes across the globe, and against the facilities.

That being said, in the words of Mr. Baer "If the Bush-Cheney administration knows anything well, it ought to be how to rebuild and run an oil field".

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they abusing the conflict to make a profit, or trying to make a profit in a land where there is currently conflict?

I don't know Ragnar69 so i'm obviously not speaking on his behalf, but I think his question was aimed at if the answer to the first question is yes, than is it ethical by abusing the conflict to make a profit? If Halliburton influenced them they obviously contributed to the conflict, thus making the first the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...