With the war on Iraq dragging on and on, people are at various stages of getting fed up and wanting it to end. A common remark is that the war is “stupid” and that “it is being fought for oil, not principle.” If probed, people would tell you that they would feel better about sending troops to Iraq to risk being shot or blown up if it was for a good cause. It is to this statement that I ask: what’s a good cause and what makes it worth dying for?

Is not oil a good cause, anyway? It’s limited, mostly foreign and in huge demand. Oil keeps our vehicles moving and allows for Vaseline. It would be hard to think of a better cause than that. Besides, you can touch, smell and, if you are so inclined, taste oil; the tangibility alone should win it some goodness points. What makes oil any less of a good cause than freedom, happiness or Hot Wheels?

The answer is nothing.

The reality is that oil is just as good of a reason to have people die as anything. The universe has already figured this out. Go online and check out the Darwin Awards and you can see that there isn’t any rhyme to which pursuits are worth human life.

People die all of the time for causes that only sometimes seem worthwhile, but never really are. People get to go about their time on Earth bumping into things until, one day, they die.

Regardless of what reason we are fighting for in Iraq or what reason we believe we are fighting for in Iraq, the truth is that it does not matter. The term “good” is entirely subjective, and as long as one person thinks that a cause is good, that cause is good (the same goes for subjective “badness”). What this means is that each cause – from freedom to Pokemon Cards – is just as good as any other and, therefore, just as worthwhile.

People determine what is good or not based on what is best for them. In other words, “goodness” is primarily selfish and only secondarily, if at all, altruistic. For this reason, it is no surprise that a president who used to be in the oil business is interested in delivering freedom to the oil-rich countries of the Middle East.

But just because you are not interested in oil does not mean that fighting in Iraq is not done for a good cause. Like I said, every cause is a good cause as long as one person in the world thinks so.

When you get down to it, you realize that just because a cause qualifies as good, that does not mean that it is worth a dime, not to mention human lives. If goodness is the measure used to determine the value of a human life, then, due to the deluge of goodness in the marketplace, human life is nearly worthless. This idea does not settle well with me. Perhaps, instead, we should find a better way to value human life.

While the idea of evaluating human life in terms of money sounds cold, it makes the most sense. If every person is assigned a certain monetary value based on their age, health, education and other statistics, then going to war or any other venture where there is a good chance for loss of life can be analyzed mathematically.

Anytime there is a profit to be made, then it is worth it. Anytime there isn’t, we stay home. At least this way we would know why we are losing loved ones and what we can expect to receive in return.

Human lives should be valuable, but when you can give thousands in exchange for a cause that is essentially worthless, they lose their value. As time goes on, the good cause you paid for will shift in and out of public favor and the people whose lives were spent will still be dead.

One will be left with a visceral feeling of buyer’s remorse and for some, extra room at the dinner table.