Israel's Disproportionate use of Force

[blackdiamond]

Ok, clearly, you are correct here. You're should is the same as his should.

My questions were:

"If one "CAN rightfully kill innocent people", when should you and when shouldn't you?"

"Could you please quote from your previous posts, the principles by which you have clearly made the case the Myron is "clearly wrong"?"

"Are you or are you not arguing from an ethical perspective against Myron?"

I fail to see where there are embedded premises here that are fallacious? They are simply a request to provide data and/or state your premises. Answering those questions helps advance the discussion. Pointing out what you think is a fallacy in my arguments, in leiu of answering the questions is *nit picking*. See, the confusion resolves itself when you simply state your premises. There is no fallacy in my assertions because you haven't provided enough data to say one way or the other. I am inferring your meaning as a rhetorical tool to draw out your premises, which you are incredibly resistant to give. Most people, when they believe their position has been mis-represented, clarify it. You simply insist I am wrong and I haven't read your position, and you don't have to answer my questions. OK, what are the fundamentals of your position.

What is it about clarifying your position that makes you so reluctant to do it?

Hello Kendall,

Sorry i couldn't respond earlier (i couldn't connect to this website in the last couple of days for some reason).

You are still insisting that i answer your question. I thought by now you would see why your question is irrelevant in the context of the debate you joined between me and Myron. but anyway, i will just tell you why and then i will answer you separately:

1. Mron makes the claim that every defending nation SHOULD make every effort to indiscriminately kill the people in the aggressor nation.

2. I say it does not necessarily have to do that ... (as a SHOULD); in short, it is not required to do so.

You enter the debate and in fact make some statements which do not support Myron (or yourself), but you still defend him as right and me wrong. The statement you made is that such a decision would be upto the military experts in the war; that it would not have any ethical context. But is Myron (or you) a military expert (firstly) and involved in strategising for the Israel war? no. So, he is not giving a tactical statement, but an ethical one: he is saying that if they do NOT adopt the strategy of trying to wipe out these populations indiscriminately, they are doing something wrong, ethically.

It is clear he is arguing from ethical necessity (against any discrimination) because he even explains why these populations are morally legitimate targets: they produce and pay taxes that keep the "war machine" going, they support their governments, etc. They are all therefore just as "bad" as if they possessed weapons to kill us.

i am against this indiscriminate wiping out of populations *as an ethical necessity* or (perhaps) as an Objectivist necessity or even as an ethically favoured strategy.

If the reason they are not wiping out entire populations (when they have no other option) is altruistic, then i agree that they are being immoral. But this does not mean - and this is the 'big step' i referred to - that "they SHOULD make every effort" to kill everyone, unless you are indeed sure that this is the only option open to them under the circumstances, which would require that you be a military expert in the israeli army, as you yourself suggested, and not just an Objectivist debater at objectivismonline.net.

Myron even wrongly used a statement from a commander in the second world war that was supposed to show a position "consistent" with his. I pointed out that this commander's statement in fact contradicts his position because the commander explicitly said he used this tactic because "precision bombs were not yet developed". You ordered Myron not to answer my questions against this "evidence" and, as far as i can tell, he has gladly obeyed you!

YOUR position, i believe, is that there are no ethical considerations to be made in tactical decisions once a decision to start a war has been made by a free nation. And i disagree with you. Now that you have stolen the debate from Myron, i will address you.

When should a defending nation stop killing? at the point (tactically) where there is roughly no threat to them any more. Sometimes they can know this beforehand, or they can only determine it as they fight. If they have a way of knowing where the people who possess the ability to pause this threat are, then they should target those and not just indiscriminately kill anyone or everyone. It is for this reason that raping women would not be ethical.

To kill or harm a person who is not a threat to you is immoral, as i said. Do you need my premise for that? it is not just respect for individual rights per se: it is the fact that you should value human life (in general) if you are rational. Of course you do not value it (generically) above your own life (specifically), but you do value it enough not to destroy it when your highest value - your own life - is not threatened by the choice to preserve or save it, in war time or not. It is the same logic that would lead you to help an accident victim.

(I have written this rather quickly due to a pending appointment, so i will clarify anything i might have been inexact about in my next post).

Thanks.

[Felix]

To add my two cents:

Killing civilians on purpose is wrong. There may be unwanted collateral damage, okay. I guess we have to live with that in any real war (even though efforts should be made to limit that). But civilians are not the targets. Armies and governments are. If the goal is "to free the citizens of that country from their oppressors" I doubt that killing them is the way to reach it.

I think it is right and justified to defend yourself against a direct attack. Preventive attacks would require quite some evidence. Playing world police is self-sacrifice.

That's all I have to say about this.

You can go on fighting now.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Felix

[KendallJ]

Many posts to answer, but since diamond and I were engaged, I'll start with his.

blackdiamond,

Thank you. This is what I was waiting for. Mostly because it helps me understand where you position actually is, mostly I better understand your premises behind when the "should" are considered.

I think you'll find that my position is between yours and Myron's. I don't take responsibility for Myron's method of argument. We all argue for ourselves. However, I have been challenged several times subsequent to my entry into the discussion so I will continue to clarify my position.

My objection to your respose to Myron, had to do with the fact that you claimed that he was "revising" history by making the claim that the US dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. I told him not to answer your counter, not because even though your argument was correct, it wasn't germaine. He chose a poor quote to make his illustration, and I believe his fundamental assertion that civilians were targeted specifically by the US is correct. I briefly searched an pulled this reference from Wiki (referencing the targeting committee).

from Wiki "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

Choice of targets

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area.

They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".[7]

The reference if from the Targeting Committee report. This has nothing to do with the technology not being available to discriminate between civilian and military targets, but rather with the decision to target BOTH a military and civilian target, with the intent that if it didn't hit one, it was sure to hit the other, and create the "psychological effect" desired. In that context I would still defend Myron, as right and you as wrong.

But now that we have your additional premises, let's see if we still disagree.

If the reason they are not wiping out entire populations (when they have no other option) is altruistic, then i agree that they are being immoral. But this does not mean - and this is the 'big step' i referred to - that "they SHOULD make every effort" to kill everyone, unless you are indeed sure that this is the only option open to them under the circumstances, which would require that you be a military expert in the israeli army, as you yourself suggested, and not just an Objectivist debater at objectivismonline.net.

...

YOUR position, i believe, is that there are no ethical considerations to be made in tactical decisions once a decision to start a war has been made by a free nation. And i disagree with you. Now that you have stolen the debate from Myron, i will address you.

I need you to clarify the "only" in , "sure that this is the ONLY option...". I would phrase it instead that "unless you are indeed sure that this is the BEST option". You mis represent my position, as I have clarified in further discussion with Sophia. The prosecution of a war requires ethical consideration, but the standard by which those considerations are ethical needs require nothing other than the ethical sanction already granted to a self-defending govt, and the proper objectives that go along with that sanction. Anything tactic that is outside those objectives is unethical, but tactics that meet those objectives are ethical. Evaluating a particular tactic then is not one of ethics, but one of military science, and requires evaluation of multiple factors. In this respect, I agree with you. Just because you can doesn't mean it is the best course of action. And for this you need to be military commander versed in military strategy and tactics.

I can think of all sorts of actions that members of an army may take that would be unethical, so I'm not advocating for arbitrary use of force. (I'll ask Myron to come into the debate and see if he is. I think you suspect that he is, but I am not.)

To this end, a separate ethical concept, such as "proportionality" is unwarranted in order to evaluate the actions of a defending govt, and in fact muddies up the waters and serves as a package deal, which the agressors will use against you. I realize that you have not advocated that concept yet, but several others have joined the debate specifically to use it as an ethical tool. I hope you'll clarify your position and either help me defend the correct concept, or continue to debate me. I think we still have a point of contention around your "only option" so we should pursue that. If your criteria for "only option" in fact yields a separate ethical concept then we will still have a disagreement.

As to the inflammatory use of the examples of baby-killing (separate from targeting the civilian population, in general) and raping as military tactics. I can make strong arguments that if you evaluate these as military tactics, they are poor options, and as such, would not be used by an objective military (again, my logic is if they are poor military options for acheiving ethically sanctioned ends, only then would inidividual rights principles eliminate them from consideration - however, if someone could show a conditions where a commander would actually make a case that rape was a valid military option to acheiving this end, then they would be ethical. I think that is a tough task for anyone that wants to try it. I think this is a reason then that you don't see it used as a matter of policy). Really, these are tactics used by agressors in general, and defenders with poor military discipline (which is a whole other topic). If someone can bring me an example of its use by an rational defending army, as a matter of specific military policy (rather than the actions of individuals), I'd be happy to debate it. Otherwise, it is like debating what we'd have to do if monkeys suddenly became conceptual.

To counter these extreme examples, I will however, bring back in Myron's example of the fire bombing of Tokyo, and European cities, and more specifically the dropping of the atomic bomb in WWII. I think the evidence is clear that these actions involved specific targeting of civilians, in the case of the bomb, specifically for the psychological effect it would have in demoralizing the Japanese govt. I think anyone who would like to argue that it was "the last or only" option available will have a tough time defending it on that basis, as well as the basis that technology to "discriminate" or select purely military targets was not available. In fact Hiroshima was a minor military center, and had been spared much of the previous bombing (same Wiki refered to earlier)

Ok, hopefully you see my angle. this leaves open challenges to both Myron, and diamond (diamond to explain further "only" options, and Myron to come back in and declare wether or not you are for truly arbitrary use of force by a defending govt)

To kill or harm a person who is not a threat to you is immoral, as i said. Do you need my premise for that? it is not just respect for individual rights per se: it is the fact that you should value human life (in general) if you are rational. Of course you do not value it (generically) above your own life (specifically), but you do value it enough not to destroy it when your highest value - your own life - is not threatened by the choice to preserve or save it, in war time or not. It is the same logic that would lead you to help an accident victim.

Thanks.

I'll say essentially the same thing that I said to Sophia here, and ask you to look at the Rand quote, where she specifically talks about sanction of a governments actions by "passivity". I think that the underlying ethical development of inidividaul rights, and the right of an individual to self defense do not necessary translate exactly into political terms. Also, the statement, "to kill or harm..." is not true as an absolute. It is not intrinsic. There are times, when if I kill or harm someone who is not a threat to me, that I have not acted immorally. There fore it is possible that there are times when a govt acting in a proper mode of self defense will be moral even if it kills or harms someone who is not a clear threat to it. What those times are is exactly what we are debating. The Rand quote is pretty damning. "Passivity", and even just intellectual support of an agressor govt, earn you some accountability for that governments actions.

[hunterrose]

Tactics that meet those objectives [of identifying and destroying a threat in self-defense] are ethical.

I can think of all sorts of actions that members of an army may take that would be unethical...

You may be able to, but at any rate you are maintaining that mass raping would be an ethical and

specifically for the psychological effect it would have in demoralizing

effective (though not necessarily most effective) means of national self-defense?

Really, [baby-killing and rape]are tactics used by agressors in general, and defenders with poor military discipline. If someone can bring me an example of its use by an rational defending army, as a matter of specific military policy (rather than the actions of individuals), I'd be happy to debate it.

I don't see why we'd need a historical example of child-killing in order to debate your support for it as a viable option. Nevertheless, I contend that not every action that is effective in destroying an enemy in self-defense is ethical, and I bring the notorious example of this application of a specific US military policy.

[KendallJ]

You may be able to, but at any rate you are maintaining that mass raping would be an ethical andeffective (though not necessarily most effective) means of national self-defense?

Interesting tactic, taking snipets of phrase from here and there to portray an inflammatory position on my side.

No sir, you misrepresent my position. I don't think that raping in general has any sort of psychological demoralization effect, and as such would be a lousy tactic. Raping women generally has an inflammatory effect. In addition, it would have a profoundly negative psychological effect on rational troops asked to perform such a tactic. These are objective assessments of the tactic, as a military tactic in the context of its effectiveness at acheiving morally sanctioned ends, and not ethical considerations. Therefore I maintain that it would ineffective, and therefore [since not germain to ethically sanctioned ends, initiation of force principles take over] unethical. The evaluation is not intrinsic, and therefore absolute, but rather contextual, and objective. If you wish to argue for a particular context where you think it would be effective, and therefore ethical I'd love to hear it. Good luck. We arrive at similar ends, but through very different principles, which is what I'm fighting for here. The right principles.

I don't see why we'd need a historical example of child-killing in order to debate your support for it as a viable option. Nevertheless, I contend that not every action that is effective in destroying an enemy in self-defense is ethical, and I bring the notorious example of this application of a specific US military policy.

...for which the individual was court-martialed for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline". How does this contradict what I said? Honestly, find me the military handbook, the textbook of military science that advocates mass baby killing as a viable tactic. That's policy. This is an order. There is such a thing as a crime in war, and a proper code of military justice would prosecute such crimes severely. What there is not in war, is a "war crime" perpetrated as policy by a proper self-defending nation (but then that is Vladimirs question, which I haven't had time to post)

Why don't you wish to debate the Hiroshima bomb? I'm sure that killed more children under 10, than this individual. Are you implying that the Hiroshima bomb was unethical as well? If yes or no, on what basis? Lots of people are "contending" (which is another word for "assertion"), but principles seem rare. I have not advocated arbitrary use of force as you seem to want to portray me, but rather objective use of force to sanctioned ends, up to and including the targeting of civilians. Why is it that people want to pull stuff that falls into the arbitrary, and them claim it falls into the objective (i.e. "effective"). Come on, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Sherman's March. Debate these! They're the tough examples. All valid real-life examples of the applications of the principle I'm talking about, implemented as policy, after significant deliberation. I just finished John Lewis' dissection of Sherman's march, phenomenal example of a man who was willing to target civilians, and private property, with an objective set of tactics. And surprise, no baby killing...

Honestly, this feels (and please don't debate this comparison, I'm making it as an aside, not an analogy) a lot like the folks who advocate on the continuation of the FDA (separate thread I think), because they really don't understand when Rand meant laissez faire, she really meant it. And then dredge up examples (extreme ones) that expose their misunderstanding of economic and psychological principles that provide for a self regulating economy, that needs only the initiation of force principle in politics and ethics to subsist. And so too this debate needs only the proper objectives of a self defending govt in ethics and politics, and the rest is up to military science.

I ask you to bring your principles hunterrose, because I really believe strongly that if your premises depend on "discrimination", "proportionality" or what I believe that diamonds "last resort" concepts depend on, then they are really anti-concepts that serve to morally equate the initiator of force with the self defender, and can only help the enemy. If they are based on proper principles then you and I will end up agreeing.

If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, then they and their relatives must stop the war.

W.T. Sherman, on his plan to force all civilians from Atlanta

So long as an aggressor nation is a threat, its inhabitants can claim no rights with respect to the innocent nation—whether during combat (thus the legitimacy of killing civilians if militarily necessary) or after combat (thus the legitimacy of allowing dictatorial but non-threatening political leaders to take over).

Yaron Brook, in a response to letter re: Just War & American Self-Defense, in The Objective Standard

[blackdiamond]

blackdiamond,

Thank you. This is what I was waiting for. Mostly because it helps me understand where you position actually is, mostly I better understand your premises behind when the "should" are considered.

I think you'll find that my position is between yours and Myron's. I don't take responsibility for Myron's method of argument. We all argue for ourselves. However, I have been challenged several times subsequent to my entry into the discussion so I will continue to clarify my position....

Ok. Firstly, let's perhaps give some credit where it is due, yes yes: your Wiki example above is a good one, yes; and your subsequent argument is also quite clear. Your fallacies have suddenly disappeared! (See, it's so much easier to just argue for yourself instead of trying to defend someone else!!).

I will get back to you later on the few fundamental points that remain unresolved between us.

[but before i go, let me just ask a quick question for more clarity:

Would you say that the *goal* of simply killing everyone in the enemy country - even beyond the point where a military threat continues to exist from them (to you or to your allies) - can ever be morally justifiable? (I want to know just how far you agree with Myron, so that i can have a very clear target here ; remember you said his position is a pretty accurate representation of Dr. Brook's when i wondered if he had really read the Brook article.)]

[hunterrose]

I don't think that raping in general has any sort of psychological demoralization effect, and as such would be a lousy tactic. Raping women generally has an inflammatory effect. In addition, it would have a profoundly negative psychological effect on rational troops asked to perform such a tactic. These are objective assessments of the tactic.

"In general?" "Generally?"

How are you proposing that it be established that this objectively has an inflammatory (and not demoralizing) effect?? And does shooting or bombing civilians have a negative psychological effect on rational troops?

The individual was court-martialed for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline". How does this contradict what I said?

The "individual" was not court-martialed for killing children, but for perjury; the policy consequentially was never put to any ethical test. Had his orders (and by extension, this policy) been put on trial, an examination of whether killing of children was ethical only required determining whether it was effective, correct?

Come on, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Sherman's March. Debate these! They're the tough examples.

Those may be tough for me; things like torturing civilians and child killing and are tough for you. But if you can tackle your difficulties, the things you mentioned can be tackled.

I question whether Dresden was even effective in ending the war, let alone ethical. I'll have to read up on Tokyo. Hiroshima was certainly effective to an extent, though I think, to whatever extent pertinent, it unethical to pick a bombing site specifically for the sake of greater civilian casualties. Did Sherman's March involve killing/torturing civilians? If not, then I don't think it unethical.

I ask you to bring your principles hunterrose... If they are based on proper principles then you and I will end up agreeing.

My principles do depend on discrimination to an extent. Yours do not, which is why you have to claim a heretofore unvalidated capacity to determine, before the fact, which actions will effectively destroy/demoralize an enemy in order to distance your principle from abominable acts.

[Myron Azov]

How much are you willing to defend that premise?

To the hilt of my sword. The very purpose of a government is to defend the lives and property of its citizens against aggression. If Guatemalan bandits kidnap my wife there, or if Guatemalan socialists confiscate my factory there, I have a right to place a 911 call to my government in Washington and get the Marines johnny on the spot.

Is preventing the expansion of socialism an equally legitimate reason to target "complicit" populations?

Yes. By comparison, if we wish to stop the spread of the Islamic jihad, our military commanders must have the discretion to target populated areas where such vermin breed.

Perhaps, but in a potentially misleading way. Wouldn't the following be more indicative of your principled answer??

Misleading? Have I not made myself clear? If Kim is the only one in North Korea that wants to build nukes and aim them at the U.S., then let’s try to take out Kim alone. If it’s a larger group, we go for them. And if it’s the majority of the population, we make the target area still wider. Sometimes it’s not just one rotten apple, but the whole barrel. As David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute has written, “Israel should declare and wage war not only against the Palestinian leadership but also against the Palestinian people. The inevitable deaths of a few truly innocent Palestinians should not stop Israel from doing whatever it takes to eliminate its enemies; any deaths of innocents would be the moral responsibility not of Israel but of the guilty majority of Palestinians that seek to destroy it.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSes...ws_iv_ctrl=1561

"Last resort?" But you don't take the same stance with nuking a Iranian nursery, why?

Of course, I do. I say we give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ten days to resign from office, dismantle his weapons plants, and free his people from oppression. If he hasn’t budged by the end of the grace period, we let our beautiful big birds fly.

How does nuking Japanese or Iranian civilians objectively met your objectives in a way that mass raping does not? If mass rape was the route to victory with the minimum loss of life and liberty on our side, what is the logical conclusion of your principled stance?

1) Nukes are quicker. 2) The purpose of war is to kill the enemy, not increase his ranks. 3) Why should the males of the complicit population escape retribution?

[blackdiamond]

My objection to your respose to Myron, had to do with the fact that you claimed that he was "revising" history by making the claim that the US dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. I told him not to answer your counter, not because even though your argument was correct, it wasn't germaine. He chose a poor quote to make his illustration, and I believe his fundamental assertion that civilians were targeted specifically by the US is correct. I briefly searched an pulled this reference from Wiki (referencing the targeting committee)...

The reference if from the Targeting Committee report. This has nothing to do with the technology not being available to discriminate between civilian and military targets, but rather with the decision to target BOTH a military and civilian target, with the intent that if it didn't hit one, it was sure to hit the other, and create the "psychological effect" desired. In that context I would still defend Myron, as right and you as wrong.

Dear Kendall,

I'm back. Perhaps too soon!

On a break from work a few hours ago, i decided to take a little nap and then suddenly, in my semi-sleep, i saw your Wiki quote! And yes indeed, it does have a small problem (though perhaps not as clearly visible as Myron's quote):

The strategists in that Wiki-quote were specifically targetting military targets, but the only reason, it appears to me, that they decided to widen the target area to the civilian population, is that there was a chance of missing their specific military target as an isolated target! This would have obviously been a major waste, and the enemy threat would have continued. This seems to agree with my earlier argument that innocent targets are legitimate only when it is technically impossible or difficult to destroy the source of the actual physical threat (this, by the way, is what i mean by "only" - refer to your question to me in your last post.)

I still see no evidence, therefore, that the second world war strategists specifically targetted civilian populations without this coming up only as the *unavoidable* option. I would be surprised to see reports of a war in which a modern (and free and civilised) state considered the tactic of attacking civilians as an independently valid option that was not strictly justified by a difficulty in specifically targetting a military force.

This has nothing to do with the technology not being available to discriminate between civilian and military targets, but rather with the decision to target BOTH a military and civilian target, with the intent that if it didn't hit one, it was sure to hit the other, and create the "psychological effect" desired. In that context I would still defend Myron, as right and you as wrong.

i think the idea of not being able to discriminate still comes out clearly from the fact that they only considered the idea of bombing the city *because* they feared that they could *MISS* the military targets in isolated regions (do you think, from your Wiki quote above, that they could have still targetted civilian populations, if they knew they would not *miss* military targets? Then why say "because"?)Your statement that they targetted BOTH "so that if they missed one they would hit the other" is, at the very least, specious.

I therefore stand by my earlier charge that there is some massive revisionism (of historical facts) going on here from both you and Myron. I will change my mind (on history) if better evidence is presented, although this will not change my moral position. So far your evidence is not exactly supporting you.

from Wiki "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

Choice of targets

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. [7]

Edited July 24, 2006 by blackdiamond

[KendallJ]

Nope, I expected this response. I worried about it for a while, but it's quite easy to answer. I still don't understand why bombing Hiroshima is the "only" option available (by your standards)? Let me give you another option, going by your principles. You want to keep Hiroshima moral by your standards, by making it a problem of discrimination.

Option 2: Target a purely military target, even knowning that it is possible that you might not wipe it out. You see although it is difficult to assure hitting the military target, it is quite easy to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Don't confuse the two. Won't the bombing still provide psychological impact (albeit maybe less so) even if you miss the military target, as an overwhelming show of force? Demand surrender after the bombing. If not enough, then you simply wait the required time to build another bomb, and try again?

Why is this not a viable option, and thus, the Hiroshima bombing is not the "only" option? To choose to include a civilian target is not a problem of discrimination. It is a hedge. Both are viable targets. It simply improves the probability that you'll acheive the desired impact in one go. I think its a tougher distinction, so I won't accuse you of revisionism (which would imply some sort of willful evasion). Nevertheless, I believe the example holds, and by your standards, you may have to declare it immoral.

Why this argument is important to me is that, while Hunterrosse wants to claim my position makes me a baby killer (which it doesn't, and which is so extreme as to not be useful in many instances), I claim that your (and his) position will make you back down due to ethical "guilt" in many tough, real-world situations, at exactly the point that my position says you shouldn't, and exactly the point that you will risk sacrificing lives of US soldiers and citizens, and fail to eliminate the threats that you have a moral responsiblity to eliminate.

It is certainly a convenient position to try to deflect the example (i.e. turn it into a problem of discrimination - which is why I entered the discussion in the first place), but that isn't really the heart of the matter. There is a long list of real world tactical decisions that we will split on, not the "baby-killing" examples, but real life tough tactical decisions. As much as you think that you are as a staunch defender of a nations right to self defense, your methodology will fail you at exactly the time you need it most. I think Israel is clearly warranted to strike the Lebanese and Palestinian people, you question it. I think the Israel (or the US) is warranted to strike Iran and Syria now, my guess is you wouldn't.

What I misestimated (and I can see that now) in entering the conversation was the animosity that you had for Myron and his style of argumentation. I'll grant you in the spirit of hashing out the details, his style may not be the best. Ultimately he speaks for himself and I speak for myself. However, what I like about him is that he isn't about to accept unearned guilt for ethically valid actions.

Edited July 24, 2006 by KendallJ

[Myron Azov]

. . . However, all these cases indicate that killing innocents has to be a last resort (and not a first resort).

My question was why should that limit NOT exist when we are talking about civilians of different country.

The non-existence of such limit is obvious from the words of Leonard Peikoff: "...And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire".

This sentence puts NO limit on the damage for innocents of an enemy country. But in the individual realm there is a clear distinction. There is a logical gap between the two.

Or maybe I am misinterpreting Peikoff's sentence. On one hand he says "caught in the line of fire" but on the other hand he says "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties...".

Well what if the fewest US casualties would mean simply to nuke everyone? That would contradict the second half of the sentence "caught in the line of fire", which implies an action taken against the army of the enemy, with unfortunate, untargeted, civilian casualties.

1. War is a last resort. The U.S. has already used up all available diplomatic means to get Iran and North Korea to stop building WMDs and stop exporting terrorism. Enough jaw-jaw. Time for war-war.

2. As I have already explained (apparently without your bothering to take notice), there is no moral difference between an individual citizen killing an innocent person when that is the only avenue of self-defense open to the victim, and a nation doing the same thing. The logical gap you keep bringing up is non-existent.

3. Any nation acting in self-defense should be held blameless for the deaths of both a) enemy civilians “caught in the line of fire” (i.e. civilians not specifically intended as targets but who die unavoidably in the process of eliminating enemy soldiers and leaders) and complicit populations (those who by continuing to work, pay taxes and do nothing to change their evil form of government keep it in power).

[KendallJ]

Option 2: Target a purely military target, even knowning that it is possible that you might not wipe it out. You see although it is difficult to assure hitting the military target, it is quite easy to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Don't confuse the two. Won't the bombing still provide psychological impact (albeit maybe less so) even if you miss the military target, as an overwhelming show of force? Demand surrender after the bombing. If not enough, then you simply wait the required time to build another bomb, and try again?

I have a third even more viable option for you to consider.

Option 3: Drop bomb number 1 on a purely military target. If that fails to acheive surrender, then drop bomb #2 on a mixed target.

Surely, you must agree by your principles that the targeting of the civilians of Hiroshima, MUST have been immoral since it was not the "only" option open to the U.S.

[Marc K.]

Where the war is a defensive one waged by a "free nation" it is justified whereas if it is an aggresive war or a war waged by a "slave nation" it is not. You are saying that if the war is justified, any means taken by the defending free nation are justified, whereas no means of war used by an aggressor nation are justified.

This is essentially correct as long as "any means" denotes objectively determined means used to end the war as soon as possible.

What you have essentially done is remove the element of proportionality from both the defender AND the aggressor however.

There is no element of proportionality. The aggressor has NO sanction to use force. The defender has every "right" to use whatever means necessary to end the threat from the aggressor.

The problem you are having is in distinguishing good from bad, right from wrong and what options are open to an aggressive government.

The initiation of force is ALWAYS wrong. The use of retaliatory force is a moral imperative and ALWAYS good.

A slave nation has no moral sanction to exist, it is already initiating force against its population and it has no moral sanction to even ward-off the attacks of a free nation defending itself. The only option open to an aggressive government is to end their aggression and surrender themselves. Then for the new government to recognize the rights of its citizens.

The slave nation is the bad guy, the free nation is the good guy.

When the police, with guns drawn, corner a murderer and demand he surrender, the murderer does not have the right to "defend" himself from them.

[KendallJ]

To those who think the killing of civilians is not only justified but actually should be a favored strategy, (Myron, Kendall, Lazlo) I have the following question:

Doesn't maintaining such an ethical position require a nation to give up all efforts at punishing "war crimes" committed by other nations, even aggressor nations?

I hold that it does, because what you are saying is that the only moral question in war is whether or not the war itself is justified. Where the war is a defensive one waged by a "free nation" it is justified whereas if it is an aggresive war or a war waged by a "slave nation" it is not. You are saying that if the war is justified, any means taken by the defending free nation are justified, whereas no means of war used by an aggressor nation are justified.

What you have essentially done is remove the element of proportionality from both the defender AND the aggressor however. An example makes the problem clear, I think.

Examples:

A.) An American pilot shoots down an attacking Japanese fighter plane.

B.) An American pilot drops a bomb on a Japanese civilian target in an effort to kill Japanese women and children.

You would apparently hold that there is no moral difference in these actions since America's war against Japan is justified as it is in national self-defense.

The problem is that this position also makes there be no moral difference in the following two situations;

C.) A Japanese pilot drops a bomb containing deadly biological agents on a Chinese village in an effort to test its effectiveness.

D.) A Japanese pilot shoots down an attacking American fighter plane.

Your position mandates that the above two examples are also morally equivilant, in that they are equally immoral because Japan's war is not justified. It is impossible to punish the Japanese pilot who dropped the biological bomb on civilians any more than you would punish the pilot who shot down an American plane in a dogfight.

This is why your position is so dangerous. By removing proportionality from American action, there is no way to preserve it for any other nation's action. When you couple this with the fact that most nations go to war under the auspices of national self-defense, regardless of their actual motives, you get a terrifying combination.

Soldiers of any nation would have no moral or practical disincentives to not being as brutal as they possibly can be. If they go out of the way to not kill civilians, they are actually putting themselves in a worse position because the U.S. will not show their civilians the same consideration. They would have no incentives to treat American prisoners humanely. In fact, there would be no incentive to taking prisoners in the first place, and not just summarily shooting anybody who surrenders.

Vladmir,

This was an interesting question, and I wanted to speak to it, but I don't have much time right now, so please forgive me if my response seems rushed.

You are correct in stating that I have removed the element of proportionality from my analysis. That is because I believe that it is a package deal concept. However, do not assume that this leaves you in a problem. Do not mistake my identification of the ethical principle subsumed by the various examples as a statement of equality. For example, robbery, rape, murder are all immoral on the "initiation of force" principle; however, they are treated differently in terms of punishment. I think if you wanted to account for a varying level of immorality, that my assessment would still allow it, and in fact this is what a military code of justice is for.

As to the idea that this incurrs the concept of unlimited brutality. I wholly disagree. I think that wanton, indescriminate brutality is a poor military tactic. As such, I would see a rational defender minimize its use in practice. I can discuss more, but short on time right now

As to war crimes, as I said, I don't think my ethical evaulation eilminates the concept. However, today, I think that the concept of "war crimes" is highly misused. I think that it parallels much the same as the concept of a "hate crime", ie somehting we have to tack onto a particularly egregious crime because we failed to exercise proper moral judgement when judging the crime originally. I also think that the proper concept of a war crime belongs within a code of military justice, and that it is rightfully prosecuted by a defending nation, in a military tribunal, not some "impartial" third party (unless agreed to by treaty, and then only for those nations participating in the treaty). The idea of the ability of Hezbollah to go to an independant court and claim war crimes on the part of Isreal is an abomination, and a complete perversion of the concept.

A soldier or officer of a defending nation can commit a crime if he violates the objectively communicated policies and tactics of a properly defending army, but this is subject to military justice, again prosecuted at the national level. A soldier who follows policy and kills civilians, even if by accident does NOT commit a crime (e.g. Haditha was not a crime). A defending govt prosecuting a war of self defense as a matter of definition, CANNOT commit war crimes. There is a reason that a code of military justice is specifically harsh. It is because a soldier in an army is given license to use deadly force, but for specific ends only. Independantly going outside of those ends, means he is abusing that license, and that is especially immoral.

How to rational armies decide on proper tactics, and enforce "objectivity"? Look for things like military academies, a study of military history and military philosophy, strategy boards, chain of command, code of military justice. These are all aspects of a proper science of war, and mehanisms that a proper army uses to objectively decide on and execute proper tactics. It's what Hunterrose blanks out when he insists,

you have to claim a heretofore unvalidated capacity to determine, before the fact, which actions will effectively destroy/demoralize an enemy in order to distance your principle from abominable acts.

, and it's what limits the "unbounded brutality". Reason can be applied to war, just as it is to economics, psychology, etc.

[Marc K.]

If the goal is "to free the citizens of that country from their oppressors" I doubt that killing them is the way to reach it.

This would be the goal of an altruist so I guess we know which side you are on.

You realize this forum is for discussing OBJECTIVISM right. So perhaps in the future you will keep your two cents to yourself lest it have something, anything, to do with Objectivism.

[~Sophia~]

I think that the underlying ethical development of inidividaul rights, and the right of an individual to self defense do not necessary translate exactly into political terms.

Politics is a process by which decisions are made in groups. It is a process of conflict resolution.

What exactly are you saying by this statement?

[Vladimir Berkov]

You are correct in stating that I have removed the element of proportionality from my analysis. That is because I believe that it is a package deal concept. However, do not assume that this leaves you in a problem. Do not mistake my identification of the ethical principle subsumed by the various examples as a statement of equality. For example, robbery, rape, murder are all immoral on the "initiation of force" principle; however, they are treated differently in terms of punishment. I think if you wanted to account for a varying level of immorality, that my assessment would still allow it, and in fact this is what a military code of justice is for.

Thank you for responding to my question. So are you saying that there is a way to differentiate between the immorality of different military strategies of aggressor nations although the same cannot be done for defending nations?

In my examples above, do you see any difference in morality between the two American pilots? Do you see any between the two Japanese pilots?

Since you stated that a defending nation can't commit war crimes by definition, I can only assume you see no moral difference between the two American pilots, but I am unclear on your position on the Japanese pilots.

If you hold there is a difference in the morality (and thus potential culpability) of the Japanese pilots, I would like to know how you think a defending nation could ever ethically prosecute the aggressor for war crimes. It would seem there would be no requisite mens rea on the part of the aggressor soldier to commit a war crime. The aggressor soldier would think he is fighting a just war, and using an allowable military tactic at the time he commited the offense. Any realization of the culpability of his action will only occur if and when his country loses the war and he is brought before a court comprised only of the victors.

It would seem that the only way you can have prosecutions for war crimes is if there is some agreed-upon standard of military ethics BEFORE any conflict arises. For instance, if American and Japan had signed an international treaty forbidding summary execution of prisoners before the war, it would make sense to punish Japanese soldiers who broke this treaty on the grounds that they knew they were committing a punishable offense at the time. But if no such treaty exists, the only scheme of military ethics the Japanese soldier has to go by is that of the Japanese Army which might very well tell him that executing prisoners is encouraged.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Vladimir Berkov

[KendallJ]

Thank you for responding to my question. So are you saying that there is a way to differentiate between the immorality of different military strategies of aggressor nations although the same cannot be done for defending nations?

In my examples above, do you see any difference in morality between the two American pilots? Do you see any between the two Japanese pilots?

Since you stated that a defending nation can't commit war crimes by definition, I can only assume you see no moral difference between the two American pilots, but I am unclear on your position on the Japanese pilots.

If you hold there is a difference in the morality (and thus potential culpability) of the Japanese pilots, I would like to know how you think a defending nation could ever ethically prosecute the aggressor for war crimes. It would seem there would be no requisite mens rea on the part of the aggressor soldier to commit a war crime. The aggressor soldier would think he is fighting a just war, and using an allowable military tactic at the time he commited the offense. Any realization of the culpability of his action will only occur if and when his country loses the war and he is brought before a court comprised only of the victors.

It would seem that the only way you can have prosecutions for war crimes is if there is some agreed-upon standard of military ethics BEFORE any conflict arises. For instance, if American and Japan had signed an international treaty forbidding summary execution of prisoners before the war, it would make sense to punish Japanese soldiers who broke this treaty on the grounds that they knew they were committing a punishable offense at the time. But if no such treaty exists, the only scheme of military ethics the Japanese soldier has to go by is that of the Japanese Army which might very well tell him that executing prisoners is encouraged.

Vladimir,

Great questions. Yes, I see no moral difference in the American pilots, but could see a moral difference in the Japanese pilots.

My thoughts on war crime tribunals. Again, I don't have a ton of time so I'll at least try to state what I think. I think that the proper place for such a tribunal is at a national level, as I said before. It can be allowed to be elevated to a 3rd party, but only by treaty, and then not as some "generally agreed to human right", but by the fact that a nation also cedes this right by treaty.

If not done this way, then I don't think it necessarily need be preagreed to. I think some statement in a declaration of war that states, "your soldiers and officers will be tried in our court of military law" gives plenty of notice. That's objective, clear and gives their side a chance to surrender if they don't like the idea.

The John Lewis article on Sherman's march gave me this idea as to an objective tactic.

Sherman continued to follow this policy toward noncombatants and their property, connecting his principled understanding of warfare to his tactics, attacking any who resisted but sparing those who opened their doors to him. When he entered the town of Sandersville, he saw rebel cavalry burning supplies in a field. In response, Sherman ordered buildings in the area burned, and as the smoke wafted through town he told the citizens that if they made any attempt to burn supplies on their route, he would execute his orders “for the general devastation.” The burning stopped. As Sherman observed, “with this exception, and one or two minor cases near Savannah, the people did not destroy food, for they saw clearly that it would be ruin to themselves.”

Note, this is not the ethical "discrimination" that people clamor for, but instead it is an objective form of discrimination to concretely connects the cause of being an initiator with the effect of total descruction. It is not a moral impetus for Sherman to determin who is or who isn't "innocent", but rather an impetus on the general population by distinguishing themselves as "non-agressors". And it is done through a very objective means. "If you do X, I will inflict total destruction. If you do Y, you will be spared." In a sense, the threat of war crimes punishments is the same. Notice, it was not preagreed to by any parties, but it objectively "gives notice." "If you persist, you will be subject to my code of military justice. Desist now or face the consequences."

[blackdiamond]

I have a third even more viable option for you to consider.

Option 3: Drop bomb number 1 on a purely military target. If that fails to acheive surrender, then drop bomb #2 on a mixed target.

Surely, you must agree by your principles that the targeting of the civilians of Hiroshima, MUST have been immoral since it was not the "only" option open to the U.S.

Kendall.

I think i was quite clear what i meant by the "only" option. When you tell your wife, "i have no option left but to divorce you", you do not literally mean there are absolutely no options that could be thought of if you did apply more imagination. You can't drop context. The other options might involve you making the kinds of sacrifices that you are unwilling to live with, etc.

What you mean by "only", therefore, is that this option is not one you would normally go for but the difficulty of the situation you are in forces you to take it. So yes, there could indeed be other possibilities of what the military commanders could have done in that war, but they also had a context (that you must stick with in your analysis). They are not there to sacrifice themselves or to increase the chances of the enemy striking back as they waste too much time (like starting to rebuild the bomb from scratch, etc, if they miss the first time).

Look, Kendall. I think the critical point you are missing is that actions are not just judged from results, but from intent as well. This is true even in normal life. You can kill your wife, but before we judge your action we have to know why you did it. So you can say, "the terrorist was trying to use her as a human shield, so my only option was to kill them both since he was going to kill the children, too." We can discover by analysing your situation that there were indeed *other* options (strictly speaking), but we will still not judge you as immoral (or your action as illegal) because we know that you only killed your wife as an "unavoidable" option and not as a simple, deliberate (first option) choice.

I hope you now see that you are hanging on to the wrong word ("only") in your analysis of my position, instead of considering the wider idea of what i am saying [you are dropping context] ethically.

Thanks.

(By the way, if i may ask: would you think it would be fine for them to drop a bomb on civilians if the EXACT, SAME RESULT can be achieved by dropping the bomb on a strictly military target - and they had ONE HUNDRED PERCENT chance of achieving this, no extra costs, etc? Would it be just a normal, equally valid option to you, that can be decided by tossing a coin? i have already asked you this question in another form, but i'm not sure you have attempted to answer it.)

[KendallJ]

(By the way, if i may ask: would you think it would be fine for them to drop a bomb on civilians if the EXACT, SAME RESULT can be achieved by dropping the bomb on a strictly military target - and they had ONE HUNDRED PERCENT chance of achieving this, no extra costs, etc? Would it be just a normal, equally valid option to you, that can be decided by tossing a coin? i have already asked you this question in another form, but i'm not sure you have attempted to answer it.)

Blackdiamond,

Thanks for your explanation. I think I understand better what you mean by "only". Given that, I would say that we are close enough in position as to be to the point of "splitting hairs". If faced with a tough military choice, my guess is that we woudl sit and debate it as a military tactic, much more than we would debate it as an ethical issue, and so probably come to similar conclusions. Thanks for sticking it out, and I apologize if my style annoyed you at first.

I think there are others still in the thread who don't quite use the logic the way you do, and warrant additional debate. And I even think Myron and you might be pretty close in thought (but I don't speak for either of you).

As to your question above, I can answer it. For specific case it needs to be analyzed as a military tactic first, without that analysis they are ethically indeterminate. If they truly both will meet the same objectives, then they are ethically equal. I have full sanction to do both. I don't think they will in actuality meet the same objectives, but this is for the military tacticians to debate. If it is decided that there is a significant difference between the objectives met by both options (lets say Military option meets 100% of objectives, and Civilian option meets 0%) then, and only then does the Civilian option become an ethical issue, because it is outside the ethically sanctioned objectives of a proper defending army.

The Sherman example above I hope indicates why it is in the defending army's self interest to use tactics that discriminate between agressors and surrenderers. This is because it links cause and effect for those civilians who observe his actions. This is an evaluation purely on military not ethical terms (and the province of military science). Thus, rational armies are not motivated to wanton, indescriminate brutality even though they are not ethically bound not to use it.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Vladimir,

Great questions. Yes, I see no moral difference in the American pilots, but could see a moral difference in the Japanese pilots.

Do you have any support for this assertion? What exactly is the moral difference between the Japanese pilots? I cannot be something about their actions, as you see both American pilots as being moral even though they did the same acts.

If not done this way, then I don't think it necessarily need be preagreed to. I think some statement in a declaration of war that states, "your soldiers and officers will be tried in our court of military law" gives plenty of notice. That's objective, clear and gives their side a chance to surrender if they don't like the idea.

But does this really solve the problem I stated earlier? Countries generally do not go to war expecting to lose, and they already assume that losing the war will have terrible consequences. Simply stating at the beginning of the conflict that if your country wins you get to try the losers by your rules only adds to the enemy's overall fear of losing. This almost certainly will lead to the opposite effect than the one intended, leading to more atrocities and more brutality. I will try to use an example.

Let's say America states it will try the Japanese by American laws in 1941 when the war started. In 1941, the Japanese think they can win the war, they aren't enormously worried about losing and hence they are not worried about facing American war-crimes tribunals. Since you have stated that America by definition can't commit war crimes, there is nothing stopping America from fire-bombing Japanese civilians whenever they wish. The Japanese, in turn have to choose whether to respond in-kind and target American civilians and thus be open to war-crimes tribunals if they lose, or else refrain from targeting civilians and be more likely to lose the war.

History shows that nations will be brutal and commit atrocities if they think it will be to their military advantage, regardless of potential post-war legal consequences if they lose. This is particularly true of aggressor nations who will likely face severe post-war sanctions regardless of whether they commit war-crimes or not. It is only once a nation realizes that the war is lost that they will be cautious of potential post-war liability, and by this time this caution is far too late as the vast majority of atrocities have already been committed. Nazi Germany is an excellent example of this.

Too, because stating that you will impose your military law on a losing enemy makes the enemy losing the war that much more dangerous and catastrophic, it is likely to strengthen their will to fight. Again, Germany is an excellent example. The Germans fought heroically on the Eastern Front even when pushed back to the streets of Berlin because they so feared losing or surrendering to the Soviets who they knew would exact harsh vengeance on their military and civilian population alike.

You cite Sherman as an example of your theory working in practice, yet I think it shows the opposite. The civilians frightened into submission by Sherman were essentially already defeated, they had no real way to militarily oppose the Federal troops. At such a point, a threat from the opposing side carries great weight because the choice is essentially "surrender or die," where surrender is the better of the two options. The calculus clearly favors surrender because it entails almost no risk. To a country which still has real military capacity in which the members of the military face harsh punishment if they surrender, the calculus gets tipped in the other direction. They might as well simply fight because if they surrender they will be treated harshly for certain, but in continuing to fight they have at least the possibility of success. In fact, in such a situation they might be spurred on to even more desperate, brutal tactics in a last-ditch attempt to gain victory or at least kill those they think are their enemies. Look at how the killing at concentration camps was stepped up as the Soviets drew closer and it looked more and more likely that the camps would be overrun.

[KendallJ]

Do you have any support for this assertion? What exactly is the moral difference between the Japanese pilots? I cannot be something about their actions, as you see both American pilots as being moral even though they did the same acts.

I stated it in the post. Let me see if I can be more clear.

a. A man shoots and kills a man in self defense.

b. A man hits a man over the head in self defense

c. A man shoots and kills a man in the act of robbery.

d. A man hits a man over the head in the act of a robbery.

Both a and b are moral. Both c and d are immoral. However, c will get 25 to life and d will get 5-10 (sentences are arbitrary, I didn't go look this up). The difference between c and d is exactly "something about their actions". You will find these types of distinctions between crimes in a code of military justice as well.

But does this really solve the problem I stated earlier? Countries generally do not go to war expecting to lose, and they already assume that losing the war will have terrible consequences.

uh,huh. So why do men still commit crimes knowing there is punishment if they are caught? They commit them because they think they won't get caught. The mens rea is the commander (President, senate, etc) who weighs the outcomes of initiation of force and decides to do it on the bet that he won't get caught, and the soldier who follows him without question.

Simply stating at the beginning of the conflict that if your country wins you get to try the losers by your rules only adds to the enemy's overall fear of losing. This almost certainly will lead to the opposite effect than the one intended, leading to more atrocities and more brutality. I will try to use an example.

It only leads to the opposite effect, if you actually have a mens rea, doesn't it?

Let's say America states it will try the Japanese by American laws in 1941 when the war started. In 1941, the Japanese think they can win the war, they aren't enormously worried about losing and hence they are not worried about facing American war-crimes tribunals. Since you have stated that America by definition can't commit war crimes, there is nothing stopping America from fire-bombing Japanese civilians whenever they wish.

I've already explained why it is in a defending army's interest not to use such tactics even if they are not morally bound not to do them. This is the key issue. You are like the person who advocates the FDA on the premise that there is nothing stopping a drug company from poisoning its customers if it not legally regulated from doing so. In fact, the science of military tactics (just as the science of economics) explains why this is not the case. This is exactly what the Sherman example shows.

Your examples will necessarily contain a preponderance of agressor examples.

History shows that nations will be brutal and commit atrocities if they think it will be to their military advantage, regardless of potential post-war legal consequences if they lose. This is particularly true of aggressor nations who will likely face severe post-war sanctions regardless of whether they commit war-crimes or not. It is only once a nation realizes that the war is lost that they will be cautious of potential post-war liability, and by this time this caution is far too late as the vast majority of atrocities have already been committed. Nazi Germany is an excellent example of this.

History shows that defenders will be brutal, if it serves their military objectives. Only agressors will be brutal, regardless of wether it meets their military objectives. That is what makes a true, end of the scale, maximum punishable "attrocity". Sherman is an excellent example of the former. Nazi Germany is an excellent example of the latter. Please separate the two if you look at history. If you do not, then you are committing the crime of moral equivalence. Brutality does not inherently equal "war crime."

Too, because stating that you will impose your military law on a losing enemy makes the enemy losing the war that much more dangerous and catastrophic, it is likely to strengthen their will to fight.

Again, Germany is an excellent example. The Germans fought heroically on the Eastern Front even when pushed back to the streets of Berlin because they so feared losing or surrendering to the Soviets who they knew would exact harsh vengeance on their military and civilian population alike.

So too, does a surrounded criminal potentially lash back at the policemen that surround them. It is not their call to "freeze" that necessarily convinces him. It is either when he is subdued forcibly, or when he recognizes the unreasonableness of his position in the face of overwhelming force and gives up. A dumb criminal sees reason much later than a smart one (and thus dumb criminals can actually be more dangerous than smart ones); however, neither saw reason when they started out did they. I am not morally responsible for the actions of either.The Germans were stupid for starting the war, because they thought they could win (mens rea), and they were stupider for thinking that last minute brutality might save them.

Here, Sherman's response to Confederate General Hood, when he protested Sherman's failure to "give notice" of the shelling of Atlanta is instructive:

I was not bound by the laws of war to give notice of the shelling of Atlanta, [quoting Hood’s own words]“a fortified town, with magazines, arsenals, foundries, and public stores;” You were bound to take notice. See the books.

I am not suggesting that "giving notice" of the intent to try war crimes after a war, is a moral obligation, but it gives the "smarter" soldiers a chance to see reason and potentially limit their actions, and it gives me, as a proper defender an objective standard by which I will discriminate in metting out punishment. It is the only way that I, on the opposite side of the field, might help prevent needless brutality, and no one can come back later and say I was being arbitrary in my punishment. It is a good military tactic, not a moral obligation on my part.

You cite Sherman as an example of your theory working in practice, yet I think it shows the opposite. The civilians frightened into submission by Sherman were essentially already defeated, they had no real way to militarily oppose the Federal troops. At such a point, a threat from the opposing side carries great weight because the choice is essentially "surrender or die," where surrender is the better of the two options. The calculus clearly favors surrender because it entails almost no risk. To a country which still has real military capacity in which the members of the military face harsh punishment if they surrender, the calculus gets tipped in the other direction. They might as well simply fight because if they surrender they will be treated harshly for certain, but in continuing to fight they have at least the possibility of success. In fact, in such a situation they might be spurred on to even more desperate, brutal tactics in a last-ditch attempt to gain victory or at least kill those they think are their enemies. Look at how the killing at concentration camps was stepped up as the Soviets drew closer and it looked more and more likely that the camps would be overrun.

Again, you ask for a mens rea without realizing that it must factor in the "calculus". The only reason the calculus tips in the way you state is because an army believes that by risking their lives to fight even harder, that they might save their lives - only by winning. Continuing to believe there is a possiblity of winning (i.e. continuing to "get away with it") is the only factor in the calculus that causes you to continue to risk your life. It is exactly when that mens rea is smashed out of you, that the calculus immediately tips the other way. Look at the history. Did no German surrender during this fight? Were they killed to the last man? No, the smarter ones at some point went from fighting like madmen to immediately dropping their guns and raising their hands. The calculus is clear. When one realizes that there is even a slim chance of facing very harsh retribution, but maybe preserving your life, as opposed to facing certain death, the calculus tips. The stupid ones didn't get to see reason before they were killed. That is not my responsibility, and I will accept not guilt for it. It is exactly why I need such moral certainty in the fight and the willingness to be as brutal as necessary to accomplish my ends, so that I don't flinch in the face of the stupidest foe. And it is exactly why Sherman is such an inspiration (and why I tend to side with Myron and Marc K. in this debate )

I started this because I thought you wanted to preserve the concept of a "war crime", as such. I showed it to you. I'm still not sure what the problem is.

EDITED TO ADD CONTENT. NONE REMOVED. I USE THE TERM "stupid" IN THIS POST AS INTERCHANGABLE WITH "irrational". APOLOGIES IF I APPEARED BLUNT.

Edited July 26, 2006 by KendallJ

[hunterrose]

Misleading? Have I not made myself clear?

You have not, and I'll explain how.

I would like nothing better than for Kim to take a long ocean voyage so that we could drop a missile on him with minimal collateral damage. But if he won’t leave the security of his slave state, we have every right to drop bombs in his congested capital if that’s what it takes to gain victory.

According to you, this is precisely the wrong strategy. Civilians of enemy nations are part of the enemy war machine. Moderation in the attack on evil is no virtue. We should not be sparing civilians but making every effort to destroy both the dictator and his complict population. Victory requires inflicting suffering on complicit civilian populations. That's right, inflicting suffering on complicit populations.

Kim does not exist in a vacuum. It is therefore futile to exterminate a nest of two of threats if the society that breeds them like flies remains in place and open for business.

Your principles leave no room for discriminating between threatening rotten apples and threatening complicit apples. Your principles leave no room for proportionality in the context of taking out a dictator and waiting to see if that is sufficient.

But don't lose your appetite for killing Iranians and North Koreans at this critical juncture! If you have some objective means to determine which war tactics are effective/ineffective, then (and only then) you can, by your principles, ethically minimize civilian deaths and condemn child killing, rape, etc as the war crimes that they are.

KendallJ hasn't solved that difficulty either, but that's not to say it's impossible. But if you have no objective means, then all you have left are subjective means of determining war tactics, and have every reason to maximize the extermination of complicit civilians.

The very purpose of a government is to defend the lives and property of its citizens against aggression.

Coupled with "indiscriminatory and unproportionate," your idea of "defense" is doubly lethal. If on a trip to exotic lands, Australia confiscates my property by suddenly instituting a foreigner tax, the US has the right and moral obligation to wreak overwhelming destruction on Australian civilians???

[Vladimir Berkov]

Both a and b are moral. Both c and d are immoral. However, c will get 25 to life and d will get 5-10 (sentences are arbitrary, I didn't go look this up). The difference between c and d is exactly "something about their actions". You will find these types of distinctions between crimes in a code of military justice as well.

Kendall, I am going to try to respond to all your points in one big chunk rather than fragment this conversation with quotes, let me know if I miss something.

First, your comparison between my examples of military acts and criminal acts undertaken within a nation itself is faulty. Military matters cannot directly be compared to the ethics of civilian criminal matters. In criminal law, BOTH parties know from before the act occur that they are bound by the same law and that a neutral third party (judge or jury) will judge their actions objectively on whether or not they conform to the law. Neither party judges the other nor does either create the law. In the military matters we have been discussing there is no such third party, and in fact you explicitly stated how you think the very idea of a neutral judge is a bad one. In military matters there is no law which binds both parties, instead each party has its own law which it gets to impose on the loser ex poste facto. Even beyond that, the idea that because there is proportionality in civilian punishments there is a difference in morality in military acts doesn't logically follow. It is perfectly possible that some civilian penal system imposes the same punishment for all crimes regardless of severity. You still have to show how there is a difference in culpability or morally in the two acts of the Japanese pilots.

The essence of my problem with your position is that it seems to require neutral, well-informed objectivity on the part of all combatants down to the lowliest private soldier. What your position requires is for a soldier to be able to judge the "justness" of the underlying conflict, understand the military law of his enemy, weigh the relative strength of his side versus the enemy's and come to the reasonable conclusion on whether his side is just and thus he can morally do whatever he wants, or that his side is unjust and that he should immediately desert or at minimum refuse to follow any orders which violate the military law of his enemy.

I think such a position is vastly over-optimistic. For one thing, in war there is no clear-cut way to even determine which country is the defender and which the aggressor. It isn't necessarily the nation which first resorts to military force, as you can be the defender and yet use preemptive strikes against the enemy. Nor is it necessarily the nation which has the most free government. To complicate matters, all governments claim some form of self-defense or self-interest when going to war, even if such a claim is fraudulent or shaky. And all governments use propaganda both to confuse the enemy as well as reinforce support for the war at home. How can you expect a soldier to sift through all the various layers of diplomacy, politics, propaganda to arrive at the one correct conclusion as to the morality of his nation's war? Most soldiers don't fight because they think they are an aggressor nation, they fight because they think the war is justified and in their country's self-interest or self-defense.

The truly perverse element of your argument is that you put the ultimate burden on the individual soldiers to determine the morality of both their personal actions and the actions of their government, yet the very structure of any good military works to PREVENT individual soldiers from making such determinations. Soldiers are not supposed to figure out the politics and justice of a war on the grand scale. They are trained to think at a very small scale and to follow the orders of their superiors under threat of harsh punishment or death. The entire military machine works to keep soldiers from deciding for themselves what actions are moral and what are not. They only need to know what actions their side allows and what are punished. To expect a soldier to refuse to follow the orders of his superior on the grounds that the order violates the military law of the enemy is just too much.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Vladimir Berkov

[~Sophia~]

I think that the underlying ethical development of inidividaul rights, and the right of an individual to self defense do not necessary translate exactly into political terms.

Politics is a process by which decisions are made in groups. It is a process of conflict resolution.

What exactly are you saying by this statement?

It is strange to be replying to your own post but I just read a passage that clearly relates to this argument.

"Rights" are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. [VOS, pg. 108]