Topic 2: When is War Murder? The Moral Calculus of Killing Flashcards
Michael Walzer
“Just and Unjust Wars”
Main Argument
ABSOLUTIST
Morality and responsibility must be at the forefront of decision making in war
The application of moral standards for the justification of war and the killing of civilians when those acts are acceptable or unacceptable
The only just war is a war of self-defense:
- There are just wars, such as resisting aggression
- Resistance is important so that rights can be maintained; all resistance is also law enforcement, and one side is just
- There are unjust wars, such as conqueror versus conqueror, but happen on a smaller scale
- At the international level, the state’s deepest purpose is defense
Michael Walzer
“Just and Unjust Wars”
In what respects does Walzer deny that utilitarian criteria should govern standards for legitimate killing?
In what respects does he accept such criteria?
The utilitarian argument: The balance of power preserves liberties, and that fighting early to prevent tipping the balance reduces the costs of defense, while waiting means fighting on a larger scale with worse odds.
Walzer says that this is a utopian dream: that it is best to fall back on the legalist paradigm; given radical uncertainties of power politics, there is no way to decide when to fight or not fight based on utilitarian principles.
Sooo……
States may use military force in the face of the threat of war, whenever the failure to do so would risk their territory or political independence.
Theory of Aggression:
States have a right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty. To threaten this is criminal.
Aggression justifies a war of self-defense and a war of law enforcement. Only aggression justifies war. Aggressing states can also be punished.
1) There exists an international society of independent states
2) The international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members
3) Any use of force/threat of force against another is a criminal act
4) Aggression justifies defense and law enforcement from the victim and any other member that comes to its aid
5) Only aggression can justify war
6) Once an aggressor has been repulsed, it can be punished (punish aggression to prevent war).
Michael Walzer
“Just and Unjust Wars”
Preemptive vs Preventive War
The only just war is a war of self-defense
PREEMPTIVE WAR:
- Acceptable if you risk losing territory or sovereignty
- Pre-emptive strikes and understanding aggression: States may use military force in the face of threats of war, when the failure to do so would seriously risk their territorial integrity or political independence
Example: 6 Day War (Egyptian threats, military buildup on the border)
Israel was justified in using force because of the Egyptian threats to destroy Israel. The burden fell on the Israelis to fight.
PREVENTIVE WAR:
- Preventive war to resist BoP changes is immoral
- Rejects preventive war on moral grounds, citing the difference between killing soldiers with aggressive intentions and killing soldiers who may or may not pose a distant threat
- Also cites that fear alone is not enough. There must be credible threats
Examples:
- US 2003 invasion of Iraq
- The War of the Spanish Succession: mere augmentation of power by Louis XIV was viewed as intent to aggress, prompting war
Michael Walzer
“Just and Unjust Wars”
In what respects does Walzer deny that utilitarian criteria should govern standards for legitimate killing?
In what respects does he accept such criteria?
The utilitarian argument: The balance of power preserves liberties, and that fighting early to prevent tipping the balance reduces the costs of defense, while waiting means fighting on a larger scale with worse odds.
Walzer says that this is a utopian dream: that it is best to fall back on the legalist paradigm; given radical uncertainties of power politics, there is no way to decide when to fight or not fight based on utilitarian principles.
Sooo……THEORY OF AGGRESSION
States may use military force in the face of the threat of war, whenever the failure to do so would risk their territory or political independence.
Theory of Aggression:
States have a right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty. To threaten this is criminal.
Aggression justifies a war of self-defense and a war of law enforcement. Only aggression justifies war. Aggressing states can also be punished.
1) There exists an international society of independent states
2) The international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members
3) Any use of force/threat of force against another is a criminal act
4) Aggression justifies defense and law enforcement from the victim and any other member that comes to its aid
5) Only aggression can justify war
6) Once an aggressor has been repulsed, it can be punished (punish aggression to prevent war).
Michael Walzer
“Just and Unjust Wars”
When does he believe that killing civilians is legitimate?
THE DOUBLE EFFECT:
Away of reconciling the absolute prohibition against attacking non-combatants with the legitimate conduct of military activity
Principle of Double Effect:
- The act itself is good/indifferent (a legitimate act of war)
- The direct effect of the act is morally acceptable (e.g. destruction of a military target)
- The intention of the act is good, and due care is taken to protect the lives of civilians
- The good effect of the action justifies the evil side effects (proportionality)
Walzer says this reconciliation comes too easily, and double effect stands in need of correction
- Says that all civilians no matter their political allegiances have the right that due care be taken
Cites examples:
- Free French air force bombing occupied France, and accepting greater risks for themselves instead of harming civilians
- Norway and special commandos bombing heavy water plant, taking care not to harm civilians. Complicated by other factors such as German coercion of French workers → maybe it was Germany’s fault that civilians died, however the motive was morally sound.
SUPREME EMERGENCY:
In the event of imminent and extreme danger, states may override the rights of enemy civilians for the sake of their political community.
Examples:
1. Britain bombing Germany (1940-42): was justified in bombing German cities, when defeat at the hands of the Nazis was imminent. Once the imminent danger passed, the bombing which continued until 1945 was immoral.
- Atomic Bombs on Japan: Walzer believes that dropping the atom bomb was immoral, because unconditional surrender was not the only option. Allies could have negotiated with Japan.
Michael Walzer
“Just and Unjust Wars”
When does he believe that killing civilians is legitimate?
THE DOUBLE EFFECT:
Away of reconciling the absolute prohibition against attacking non-combatants with the legitimate conduct of military activity
Principle of Double Effect:
- The act itself is good/indifferent (a legitimate act of war)
- The direct effect of the act is morally acceptable (e.g. destruction of a military target)
- The intention of the act is good, and due care is taken to protect the lives of civilians
- The good effect of the action justifies the evil side effects (proportionality)
Walzer says this reconciliation comes too easily, and double effect stands in need of correction
- Says that all civilians no matter their political allegiances have the right that due care be taken
Cites examples:
- Free French air force bombing occupied France, and accepting greater risks for themselves instead of harming civilians
- Norway and special commandos bombing heavy water plant, taking care not to harm civilians. Complicated by other factors such as German coercion of French workers → maybe it was Germany’s fault that civilians died, however the motive was morally sound.
SUPREME EMERGENCY:
In the event of imminent and extreme danger, states may override the rights of enemy civilians for the sake of their political community.
- create fear and sense of danger, of necessity to survive, that lead to breaking conventions
- Deliberate murder of innocents cannot be justified because it saved the lives of others
Examples:
- Britain bombing Germany (1940-42): was justified in bombing German cities, when defeat at the hands of the Nazis was imminent
- Once the imminent danger passed, the bombing which continued until 1945 was immoral.
- Walzer concludes that this was not a sufficient justification, and that there is more to preserve than just life. E.g. quality of life, civilization and morality, collective abhorrence of murder. - Atomic Bombs on Japan: Walzer believes that dropping the atom bomb was immoral, because unconditional surrender was not the only option.
- The use of the bomb was a double crime
- The Japanese case is sufficiently different from the German so that unconditional surrender should never have been asked; allies could have negotiated with Japan. U.S. was threatening Japan, not averting being butchered
- The supreme emergency did not justify the attack: all that was morally required was that they be defeated, not conquered and overthrown.
Michael Walzer
“Just and Unjust Wars”
War Crimes and Responsibility
The conduct of war. Absolute rule: Self-preservation is not an excuse for violations of the rules of war.
Soldiers are only responsible for their own range of authority. Therefore officers have a higher duty than enlisted soldiers. E.g. at My Lai, the enlisted men were never charged.
Blame can be assigned to soldiers, however they might be under threat of execution, etc.
Command responsibility: Blame is to be placed more on the officers in command, who must exercise restraint and be mindful of the innocent, because officers pose the greatest threat to the weak and innocent.
Two defenses for soldiers who violate the rights of noncombatants:
- Heat of battle
- Obedience required by military service
Michael Walzer
“Just and Unjust Wars”
Limits of the realm of necessity
Necessity is generated by the conflict between collective survival and human rights. Leaders cannot help but make utilitarian choices in war, but must accept responsibility for those decisions.
Utilitarian calculations can force the violation of rules of war only when faced with defeat that is likely to bring disaster to a political community. There are no similar effects when what is at stake is only the speed and the scope of victory. In that case, the rules of war and rights must be upheld
Supreme emergencies create fear and sense of danger, of necessity to survive, that lead to breaking conventions. Example of Britain’s bombing of German cities and the Atomic Bomb from before.
Walzer concludes that this was not a sufficient justification, and that there is more to preserve than just life. E.g. quality of life, civilization and morality, collective abhorrence of murder. Deliberate murder of innocents cannot be justified because it saved the lives of others.
Paul Fussell
“Thank God for the Atom Bomb”
Main Arguments
UTLILITARIAN
In contrast to Walzer, whose argument is absolutist, Fussell is a utilitarian
Dropping the atom bomb on Japan was justified. War requires choices among craziness, is there really such thing as a just war at all?
Experience plays a role in one’s view concerning the morality of the atom bomb: “The further from the scene of horror, the easier the talk.”
Planners of the invasion of Japan estimated ~1 million casualties, Japan was willing to mobilize their entire population against an invasion…In the long run, did the atom bomb actually save lives? If the bomb had been ready earlier could it have saved lives in Germany?
Paul Fussell
“Thank God for the Atom Bomb”
Who is more convincing – Walzer or Fussell?
Personal response
Paul Fussell
“Thank God for the Atom Bomb”
Is the answer to the question that divides them straightforward or a dilemma?
It depends on your personal view point - are you a Absolutist or Utilitarian?
Absolutist argue - it is clear cut and straight forward; no trade offs or dilemma BUT what if the consequence is worse than the sin?
Betts examples:
- “can’t do good by doing wrong” Lying Baptists in Kentucky
- Grand Inquisitor “bayonet the baby”
Utilitarian argue - its a dilemma and the context matters
- if the ends don’t justify the means than what justifies war?
- Fussell has a good point with costs but at the same time we cannot condone because its a slippery slope
- With Utilitarian outlook there is not a clean and clear path
Betts Examples:
- Saving Private Ryan
Benjamin A. Valentino
“Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century”
Are the reasons that belligerents deliberately kill civilians rational or emotional?
Mass killing is rational and strategic
- It should be viewed as calculated instrument of policy: “a “final solution” to its perpetrators’ most urgent problems”
- Mass killing occurs when powerful groups believe it is the best means to accomplish radical goals, counter specific threats, or solve difficult military problems
Benjamin A. Valentino
“Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century”
Under what conditions is targeting of civilians strategically effective or counterproductive?
Effective: rarely depending on your political goal.
-Mass killing is a political and military strategy, a rational means to an end. Racism may play a role but is not the impetus
Counter Productive: It’s use often backfires
- diverting scarce resources away from real threats
- provoking increased resistance from victim groups
- mobilizing third parties on behalf of the victims, or discrediting the ideologies in the service of which it has been employed
NOTE: it has failed to achieve its perpetrators’ objectives in the long run in all of the cases examined by Valentino
Benjamin A. Valentino
“Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century”
Are certain ideologies or regime types more prone to target civilians than others?
Communist and imperialist regimes likely to engage in ethnic and territorial killing
Creation of exclusionary victim groups targeted for national security or purification reasons.
1. Communist Killings: Radical societal transformation, collectivization resulting in dispossession, few options to flee to safety. Ex: Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia; violence became a necessary expedient because populations failed to rise above their narrow “class consciousness” to appreciate the benefits of communist society – needed to be forced to
- Ethnic Killings: Fear based rather than racism based. Extermination not an end in itself; the end is to relocate the victim group. Has deeper roots in perpetrators fears of perceived threats than hatred; ethnic cleansing and mass killing are not synonymous; cleansing = removal, not necessarily killing, but results are the same
- Territorial Killings (colonial/expansionist): Perpetrators want to inhabit the land, so current occupants are killed. Two types:
Settler colonies attempt to expand their territory into regions already populated by indigenous people
States engaged in wars of expansion seek to resettle areas already densely populated and developed by others. (Ex: Germany attempted to expand its territory into Poland, Russia, and other Eastern European states. More on pg. 79)
Benjamin A. Valentino
“Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century”
Are certain ideologies or regime types more prone to target civilians than others?
Communist and imperialist regimes likely to engage in ethnic and territorial killing
Creation of exclusionary victim groups targeted for national security or purification reasons.
“Dispossessive” Mass Killing:
Results in the near total material disenfranchisement of a group. A political expedient. material disenfranchisement of large groups of people, motivated by ideological, political, or territorial goals; these goals seldom seek the killing of victim groups as an end in itself. Occurs when perpetrators conclude this kind of violence is the most practical strategy to accomplish specific political or military objectives short of outright mass killing (but results in same effect)
1. Communist Killings: Radical societal transformation, collectivization resulting in dispossession, few options to flee to safety. Ex: Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia; violence became a necessary expedient because populations failed to rise above their narrow “class consciousness” to appreciate the benefits of communist society – needed to be forced to
- Ethnic Killings: Fear based rather than racism based. Extermination not an end in itself; the end is to relocate the victim group. Has deeper roots in perpetrators fears of perceived threats than hatred; ethnic cleansing and mass killing are not synonymous; cleansing = removal, not necessarily killing, but results are the same
- Territorial Killings (colonial/expansionist): Perpetrators want to inhabit the land, so current occupants are killed. Two types:
Settler colonies attempt to expand their territory into regions already populated by indigenous people
States engaged in wars of expansion seek to resettle areas already densely populated and developed by others. (Ex: Germany attempted to expand its territory into Poland, Russia, and other Eastern European states. More on pg. 79)
