First, let us discuss war: In an age of increased tension between our country and what seems like the rest of the world, war has been pushed to the forefront of global events. When I read the word “war,” I am, of course, reminded of Iraq--a war justified by some and reprimanded by others. Next, I think of Afghanistan, and our perpetual “war on terror”—8 years after the September 11 tragedy, several worldwide terrorist attacks later, and, as of today, 30,000 more troops committed to the cause—will we ever actually attain desirable results? If the cause is worth pursuing, how should we proceed? Naturally, the controversy and justification of torture is implied when discussing our fight against terror. Can we justify our actions of war and torture without taking accountability for their indirect outcomes (absolutism); or should we focus on creating the greatest outcomes possible, without overt regard to our actions (utilitarianism)?
Nagel presents us with a conundrum to help contextualize the struggle: is it justifiable to bomb an area, thus killing innocent civilians—namely “women, babies and old people”—if we are in fact killing a leading combatant? What if we don’t kill our target, but the civilian causalities cause enemy surrender? For an absolutist, the action of killing is one that ought never to be done; but can killing be justified if it, in turn, creates a greater good? Conversely, can the act of not killing be justified if it in turn causes greater harm? It is clear that the type of person we kill in war becomes increasingly important. There seems to be an unwritten standard of “foul play”—and killing innocent people violates that code.
Next, Nagel provides an example of a politician—I shall call him Dave--who believes that his opponent’s victory would arouse moral chaos and utter detriment to society. If Dave knows that he cannot undermine his opponent in political debate, but that he can effectively ruin his opponent’s chances of winning the race by revealing embarrassing personal anecdotes—think Facebook pictures, sex-scandals, high school blunders—should he do this? Can he justify this war?
In war, the absolutist’s self-prescribed forbidden actions, like killing, or killing the innocent--or in the case of the politician: attacking something outside the bounds of relevance—seem to occasionally disallow the absolutist from choosing the lesser of two evils.
Nagel ultimately says that the world is an evil place, and that clear moral standards which allow us to definitively justify war are yet to be “codified.”
15 comments:
In Utilitarianism an action is "good" if it is a benefit to the entire society. It is based on majority. As much as I am against the war in Iraq, FROM A UTILITARIANISM POINT OF VIEW, this war is destroying the terrorist threats that are threatening the rest of the world, saving the majority. Of course killing innocent civilians is wrong, but even in our previous discussion, killing one Indian to save 19 is more moral than killing all.
I agree with Maggie. A utilitarian questions not so much the justifiability in killing women, babies, or the elderly, but what this massacre would bring about. It would be just if, as Maggie mentions, the killing of one would save 19.
I understand the point that Maggie is trying to make, but since terrorism is impossible to extinguish, can we really say that the war is justified from the utilitarian point of view? Almost everyday a bomb goes off killing innocent individuals as a sign of defiance and terrorism. So, even though we may have prevented any further "major" attacks and saved a greater number of people, is a war on terrorism justified if it can never be won? In other words, can a utilitarian justify killing civilians when there is no conceivable way to eliminate terrorists?
Elaborating on Dan's point, can we even say that the war is eliminating "major" attacks? There are terrorists planning attacks as we speak. That's probably never going to change. Now, we call the war "Operation Iraqi Freedom." So, from a utiliatarian point of view is it right to kill innocent civilians to save the freedom of the Iraqi people? Or is is the right thing to do and we should worry about the outcomes like absolutism says?
First off, absolutism forbids the deliberate killing of the harmless. As much as I've read so far in the media, and I haven't read too much, apart from a few crazies, none of the civilian casualties in the Iraq War were intentional, they were simply caught in the crossfire. After all, the goal of the war is to help innocent people. So while an absolutist view may not support this war, it does not oppose it either.
From a utilitarian point of view, if there was no war against terrorism, terrorists wouldn't have anyone to fear. If they got away with their immoral actions everyday, then what motivation would they have to stop? Although terrorism cannot be extinguished, it certainly can be discouraged and its occurrences can be reduced. I agree with all of you, except Daniel McGinty, that utilitarianism justifies the current war.
Oh, I agree that the war can be justified in the utilitarian sense, but I was trying to play devil's advocate in my previous post. I guess today's discussion on the double effect pretty much spoiled the effort.
I understand how everyone is applying utilitarianism and absolutism to determine the possible justification of our current wars, and I agree that if we were to argue for the morality of the War on Terror we would most likely employ utilitarianism, but I'm not sure that this is how these moral theories are meant to be utilized. To me, it seems that discussion of both theories are inadequate to either support or criticize war - war is too complex to establish complete moral justdgments. Instead, absolutism and utilitarianism can be used to determine conduct during war, or "the rules of war" as stated by Nagel (51). So we cannot judge the morality of the war as a whole, but only the actions taken within war (according to absolutism) or the ends of each separate strategy or operation (according to utilitarianism).
I would have to agree with Christina here. We do not apply these theories to the war itself but the actions and motives that are taken within the war. War is most likely going to occur at one point or another because of disagreements and differences in the world, whether that war is justified is for a different discussion. War is complex, as Christina put it, and “it is naïve to suppose that there is a solution to every moral problem” (73). We must focus on the actions within the war. Absolutism states that we should try to avoid killing at all cost, “not that we prevent it at all costs” (60). According to Nagel, this is why we must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants during war. A question one can pose, related to our war on terror, is what does the military do when they face children (young boys) attacking them?
I will have to agree with Christina as well. These concepts apply to the actions within the war but do little to justify the war itself. Yes, the war does prevent current terrorist organizations from acting and may save lives in the process, yet it does little to change why this part of the world hates us so much...in fact, it does a lot in the way of making them hate us more.
I think Nagel would somewhat disagree with the War on Terror due to the shroud of vagueness covering the whole thing. Who is a terrorist? How do we define a terrorist? Our government hasn't really established a set definition. Most of us have probably read articles about angry and obnoxious airplane passengers being charged as terrorists. A few years ago, I read an article on protestors being charged with terrorism. Because we lack a set definition, we do not know who the combatants are. How can we separate the functionally innocent from the functionally involved? We cannot accurately discriminate and therefore cannot behave in accordance with Nagel's principles.
I think Andrew brought up an interesting question earlier about what a soldier should do when he is faced with a young boy attacking him? Should he see the boy as a participant in war since he is taking action in attacking him? Or should the soldier not attack him back because he is a child? Should the soldier even differentiate that the boy is young since he is choosing to participate in the war? I'm curious what the right answer would be in terms of Nagel.
It would seem that this child soldier would pose a dilemma. Is he to be tried as a soldier or as a child who has been misguided. ? His childhood innocence has been eradicated by becoming a soldier whose killing is justified by war. By looking at the child soldier under this particular light the answer becomes clear. The child's new title is soldier and one most adhere to what that implies. The opposing soldier should not see a child rather see the face of an enemy.
Maggie makes a good point on what qualifies as a terrorist and what doesn't? When I hear the word terrorist I automatically picture a Osama type of guy, but if we were to ask them they would see something else. If we take the definition that terrorists are those that create chaos or terror in a society. Then by those terms the founding fathers of this nation fall into that category, but we don't call them terrorists we call them patriots. My point is that the term terrorist is too complex and should have a proper universal definition. And with regards to the child soldier case, children in those situations are not your typical American child. That child has a mentality above that of a regular child and has experienced much more than a regular child, in most cases they are viewed as young adults in their society or at least they are expected to act as it. So I agree with Johana, they should be treated as such.
I would also have to agree with my classmates. The ideas of Nagel bring into mind the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though it has been argued in history, from a utilitarian point of view, this bombing saved hundred of thousands of Japanese and American soldiers lives. In the end, the actions of President Truman saved more lives than it lost. Though if we look at it from a different point of view, we might say that these bombings were strictly against non combatants, since these people were not truly fighting in the war.
Caitlin brings up a lot of good points, but when it comes down to it, I can sum up what I have to say in a few points:
-War is always a last resort. That being said, I think it's also safe to say that we can all agree that
-War ends conflict. It may not be timely, but it works, because in war, it's kill or be killed.
-When in the business of killing, you kill combatants. You only kill combatants, at least if you're honorable.
Honor, in my opinion, is the most important trait of a soldier. Honor is the closest thing to morality that anyone will find in war.
Post a Comment