From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 00:23:45 GMT
Hi Mark,
I'm still wanting to do some ground clearing here, as I think it will stand us in good stead later.
Your point is that, to paraphrase, if we gave the non-combatants on the opposing side the same value
that we gave to loved ones on our own side, then the actions taken would change. The moral calculus
of justification would be reset, so that what had been seen as 'acceptable', was now seen as
unacceptable.
So, to get to a concrete historical example, the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was
immoral because, even if we ignore (for the sake of argument) the great power issues like wanting to
demonstrate US power to the Soviets, and accept the explanation that it was to save the lives of US
servicemen by shortening the war, it proceeded on the basis that US servicemens lives were more
considered of more value than (eg) the lives of women and children living in Hiroshima. Assuming the
overall cause of the war to be just, the just way to undertake that war would have been to proceed
with the military invasion of Japan, at a (presumed) higher cost of US servicemens lives, but a
(presumed) lower cost of Japanese non-combatant lives.
Is that a fair characterisation? (I'm not wanting to get too deeply into the Hiroshima debate, I'm
just using it to flesh out the conceptual framework)
Now, I'd like to explore where your boundaries lie here. Let's consider a hypothetical target - a
Nazi munitions factory in a German city in 1942.
Firstly, would you accept this as a legitimate military target? (ie it's used for the war effort,
even if the workers aren't killing people directly - and therefore, would you accept that the
workers count as 'combatants'?)
Secondly, in that factory, there are people who work there, but who are not producing munitions, eg
secretaries or caretakers. Do these count as non-combatants? If so, does the fact that they will
inevitably be killed by a bombing attack on that factory render the action as a whole immoral in
your view?
Thirdly, near the factory are residential areas. Because the targeting is not absolutely accurate
some houses get bombed, and people wholly unconnected with the factory, including women and
children, get killed. This is foreseeable, given the 'state of the art' at the time the decision is
made to bomb the factory. Does this render the action as a whole immoral?
I've been trying to work out if your point is a different argument to the one saying about
non-combatant immunity, ie that those who aren't involved in the fighting should be given privileged
status and protected, which I agree with. Is it a different point, in your view? If it's the same
point, then we can get stuck in to a debate about acceptable boundaries to military action. If it's
a different point then I'm still getting my head around it and I'll need to think about it some
more.
Let's come at this from a different direction, by drawing up four categories:
Category A: a just cause, pursued justly
Category B: a just cause, pursued unjustly
Category C: an unjust cause, pursued justly
Category D: an unjust cause, pursued unjustly
An example of category A might be the Battle of Britain, ie the air war in 1940. The fighting was
conducted almost exclusively by servicemen and was crucial for resisting an invasion of the UK by
Nazi Germany.
An example of Category B might be something like Hiroshima, or the allied bombing campaigns in WW2
more generally, in so far as they were indiscriminate between military targets and civilian
population.
An example of Category C might be the German invasion of France in 1940, which was a war of
aggression, but one that was pursued with no especial atrocities.
An example of Category D might be the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, which was not
only a war of aggression, but was also pursued from the beginning with violence towards the Slav
population, eg in the Ukraine.
And, of course, there are scale issues involved.
What I am unclear about is whether we are arguing A vs C or B vs D, on this specific question. (In
other words, I take your view of the Iraq invasion to be D, but when talking about the missile
attack on Baghdad, I am unclear about whether you are arguing that this is an action which is unjust
because the war as a whole is unjust, or whether it is unjust because it was not aimed at a
legitimate military target, for the sake of argument the overall cause being assumed to be just).
It does seem to me that, from what you've said so far, you'll say that the foreseeable killing of
innocents in the 1942 German city renders that bombing attack immoral, because if we put US
congressmen's families in those factory housing estates then the action would (probably) not be
taken. Is that correct?
If so, then I've got some further ways to explore this thread, but that's enough for now.
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 00:50:03 GMT