The Morality Of War

[Godless Capitalist]

To address the points above:

1. Saddam was a great admirer of Stalin and ran Iraq in a similar way to the USSR under Stalin. All dissent was ruthlessly crushed. (Iran on the other hand does allow some dissent so I think Dr. Brook's principle would have some validity there.)

2. I would include only those who actively and voluntarily assist the regime: secret police, border guards, etc.

There is a fundamental difference between a government that respects individual rights and a dictatorship. To apply Miss Rand's comments to a dictatorship is a monstrous dropping of context.

I'm missing your point. Noncompliance is even less possible in a dictatorship than in a semi-free country, so I think Tommy's point is valid. If anything, the principle Ayn Rand outlines would apply more strongly to a dictatorship.

[Tom Rexton]

In a dicatorship...

Rational Man: give me liberty, or give me death.

Irrational Man: give me slavery, not death.

To not fight in some way for one's freedom in a dictatorship, accepting instead to live in a state of slavery because one is fearful of death, is moral cowardice. It also helps to keep the dictators in power because of a lack of resistance or revolt, and thereby perpetuates the dictatorship and the atrocities it effects.

[Godless Capitalist]

Tom, that sounds great in the abstract, but you might not be so brave if you were about to be fed into a wood chipper. I too admire the courage of dissenters, but I do not consider it a moral failure to be reluctant to sacrifice oneself for a very small chance of freedom.

Some of you may want to read the following on The Ayn Rand Institute site:

"Innocents in War?" by Dr. Onkar Ghate

I like Dr. Ghate's explanation and think it a lot more nuanced and reasonable than Dr. Brook's. However ...

from the above: "Other civilians in enemy states are passive, unthinking followers. Their work and economic production, however meager, supports their terrorist governments and so they are in part responsible for the continued power of our enemies. They too are not innocent--"

But what does Dr. Ghate expect such civilians to do? Refuse to work, sit at home, and wait for themselves and their families to starve to death? (or possibly be punished as a shirker?) In a dictatorship such civilians are essentially slaves, and as such are not responsible for what is done with the products of their forced labor.

Q & A with Ayn Rand

from the above: "If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government--as all of us are paying for the sins of ours."

This at least recognizes that people in a dictatorship might be helpless.

but then: "If some people put up with dictatorship--as some do in Soviet Russia and as they did in Germany--they deserve whatever their government deserves."

This ignores the fact that dissent would likely be suicidal.

[Bowzer]

Look, dictatorships are a tragic state of affairs. They leave no alternatives for rational individuals and nations other than force. This is all the more reason to wipe them out of existence.

[Godless Capitalist]

Sure; I agree completely. What I am objecting to is the blame-the-victim approach I seem to be seeing in Dr Brook's speech.

[Bowzer]

Sure; I agree completely. What I am objecting to is the blame-the-victim approach I seem to be seeing in Dr Brook's speech.

The blame is on the regime that left no choice but war. I haven't finished Dr. Brook's talk but that is made clear in all of the essays I recommended above.

[BigDaddySexMachine]

In Post 42 Greedy Capitalist makes an obscure point about moral responsibility vs. moral legitimacy and then says "if I see any more posts or threads ignoring the point of his speech and calling Dr Brook nasty names I am simply going to delete them." But EVERYONE here seemed to be on topic (all 41!) and NOT ONE nasty name was used. It's hard to see this as anything other than intimidation and an attack on freedom. I'm new here, but the above doesn't seem to show much respect for the participants.

I need clarification about this approach. Let's take an example from history, to concretize this discussion a little.

Let's say the day is December 7, 1941. The Japanese naval air force has just destroyed Pearl Harbor, killing thousands of Americans.

Now what would you do? Offer the people of Japan freedom if they switch sides?

How would you decide who has switched and who hasn't switched?

Regular wars like WWII are different from guerilla wars and insurgencies like in Iraq. But in Japan the US should have tried to shear off pieces of the opposition country all along. We should always try to make it easy for the enemy to retreat or surrender.

Naturally, if we kill their wives, torture their soldiers, violate the Geneva Conventions, and repudiate all of human and US history in our truly extreme behavior toward their civilians -- then we can expect that they'll do the same to ours, and with horrific effect and to our net detriment. Mindlessly blaming everybody in a dictatorship seems so irrational, collectivist, vindictive, cruel, inhuman, etc.

That said, I still find the vigor and seeming cleanliness of Dr. Brook's approach bracing. No wimpy TOC stuff for him! But I just think he hops the track a bit here. Life is a little more grey and reality a little more muddy. What of the (intellectual) fog of war? And I don't think Peikoff echoes him, as another poster recently averred.

My main point, maybe, is we all have to respect the brotherhood of man and implied Social Contract. If we lose ONE innocent American via "just war theory" but save ONE HUNDRED "truly innocent" pro-American, freedom-loving, dissident Iraqis then the net benefit to the world is NINETY-NINE virtuous souls to the good.

Later on, following our example, someone else will likely repay the favor. None of this is altruism -- it's simple humanity, decency, common sense, and rationality. Ivory tower intellectuals -- Objectivist and otherwise -- traditionally lose sight of all this stuff, and I respectfully think Dr. Brook has done so here.

[stephen_speicher]

Brook goes well beyond anything said or written by Peikoff.

Then I would suggest that you have not read or heard enough of Peikoff's thoughts on these sort of issues. Here are a few quotes from Peikoff's Philosophy: Who Needs It radio show, on "Islamic Terrorists vs America," 9/6/98.

"The fact is, in a war there are no innocents. Anybody in the Sudan, we are morally entitled to annihilate. It's not their fault, you say? Yes, but it is not our fault either, and they have to bear the sins of their government....

"We have to recognize terrorism is always governmental. That means, terrorism is an act of war, and there is no answer to an act of war but to a massive military response, and that response is not on some isolated factory, or maniac, but on the seat of the government. On the capital city, on the structure of the country. A massive attack should take out their leadership, their industry, and inflict major population damage. It should leave those countries reeling from the blow, so that when the world looks they know this is the price -- annihilation is the only way."

[WorthyLoverOfExistence]

My main point, maybe, is we all have to respect the brotherhood of man and implied Social Contract. If we lose ONE innocent American via "just war theory" but save ONE HUNDRED "truly innocent" pro-American, freedom-loving, dissident Iraqis then the net benefit to the world is NINETY-NINE virtuous souls to the good.

You're new to Objectivism, aren't you ? Welcome.

I'm sorry to ignore your statements, but that wasn't my purpose in logging in tonight.

I just wanted to mention that I've noticed, after listening to this talk, a big advance in my (seemingly) life-long struggle to eliminate altruism from my automated thinking processes. I think the vision of the actual deadly effects of altruism have highlighted the urgency of the issue in my mind. I am not the only potential victim of failures in my efforts to act morally. Live itself is threatened.

[BigDaddySexMachine]

Then I would suggest that you have not read or heard enough of Peikoff's thoughts on these sort of issues. Here are a few quotes...

"The fact is, in a war there are no innocents. Anybody in the Sudan, we are morally entitled to annihilate. It's not their fault, you say? Yes, but it is not our fault either, and they have to bear the sins of their government....

"We have to recognize terrorism is always governmental. That means, terrorism is an act of war, and there is no answer to an act of war but to a massive military response, and that response is not on some isolated factory, or maniac, but on the seat of the government. On the capital city, on the structure of the country. A massive attack should take out their leadership, their industry, and inflict major population damage. It should leave those countries reeling from the blow, so that when the world looks they know this is the price -- annihilation is the only way."

Thanks for the quotes, Stephen! I based my remarks on a close recent rereading of Mr. Peikoff's October 2nd, 2001 'New York Times' article. As a "newbie" (what a term!) here I plan to get up to speed in the next few weeks. In particular I plan to listen to more than just that one Yaron Brook talk on "just war theory."

But I'm still not sure if "the truly innocent" (Brook) have to "bear the sins of their government" (Peikoff) if it's an unwanted, hated dictatorship. Just because Peikoff categorically states it doesn't necessarily close the issue. It's intellectually neat -- but not necessarily right. In the game of life, sometimes nobody is at fault.

Peikoff says terrorism is always governmental. Well, that's not true, as everybody knows. Tell it to the victims of Timothy McVeigh! And even if it was true, why necessarily target civilians? My position on all this is to OBLITERATE the leadership, including all the governmental, military, political, and religious heads, and their supporters and infastructure. But maybe NOT the civilians, bystanders, pretty girls, kids, etc. -- all of which can be regarded as either irrelevant or war booty.

Peikoff says "annihilation is the only way" but this is a dubious and unproven assertion -- very cold, seemingly amoral, and very possibly off base. What if annihilation mixed with persuasion and future friendship proves to be a better combo? What about a "carrot and stick" approach as the more rational, moral, just, inexpensive, efficacious, long-term wise, long-term benevolent way?

[stephen_speicher]

Thanks for the quotes, Stephen! I based my remarks on a close recent rereading of Mr. Peikoff's October 2nd, 2001 'New York Times' article. As a "newbie" (what a term!) here I plan to get up to speed in the next few weeks. In particular I plan to listen to more than just that one Yaron Brook talk on "just war theory."

But I'm still not sure if "the truly innocent" (Brook) have to "bear the sins of their government" (Peikoff) if it's an unwanted, hated dictatorship. Just because Peikoff categorically states it doesn't necessarily close the issue. It's intellectually neat -- but not necessarily right. In the game of life, sometimes nobody is at fault.

My purpose was not to convince you, but rather to simply illustrate that whatever the distance you perceived between Brook and Peikoff on this issue is not anywhere near as great as you thought. And, of course, I would be the last person on Earth to claim that Peikoff's position is correct simply because he says so.

I have not been involved in this discussion here because I have been through it many times before and I do not have the motivation for a yet again repeat performance. I would suggest that you also carefully read what Ayn Rand has said about the sort of principles involved in an issue like this. I admit that it is not an easy issue for many people to grasp, for a variety of reasons.

[tommyedison]

Let us say that in a country where the majority is rational (not everybody), there is a politician.

He claims to be pro-laissez-faire, rational, and claims to adhere to all Objectivist principles. But his main aim is to acquire power. On the opposition is a socialist.

Clearly, rational people will choose the former as his real aim (power) is hidden from them. But when he gains power, he slowly starts to extend his influence. He strengthens his army. He promises his army extra money if they help him in crushing the common man. The army agrees. Slowly he crushes individual rights and establishes a dictatorship. Anyone or any group however massive, which dares to defy is decimated by bombs or by guns. Any rational men who are left choose to remain silent as they think that their protest would be futile.

Now can you honestly blame any common rational man still left in existence for the government?

Is it the common man's fault that the dictatorship was established.

The dictatorship in the Soviet Union was established in 1917. Could you blame the generation of the 1960s for the dictatorship that was already established. An individual could not know whether he even trust his wife. Any protest was ruthlessly and mercilessly crushed.

The Soviet Union collapsed not only because of the revolt of the people, but because the political leaders in different countries were demanding freedom. They were supporting their people.

[Bowzer]

Now can you honestly blame any common rational man still left in existence for the government?

Exactly who are you attributing this claim to?

[tommyedison]

Exactly who are you attributing this claim to?

To this comment of Dr. Peikoff in the radio show of 9/6/98.

The fact is, in a war there are no innocents. Anybody in the Sudan, we are morally entitled to annihilate. It's not their fault, you say? Yes, but it is not our fault either, and they have to bear the sins of their government....

I may be viewing this out of context and I sincerely apologize if I have misrepresented or misinterpreted any view of Dr. Peikoff.

I just want to ask whether we have the moral right to annihilate each and every person under a dictatorship.

Just imagine if USA had decided to destroy Soviet Union in 1920. Objectivism wouldn't even have been there if Miss Rand had died.

Civilian casualties are unavoidable in war. But that doesn't mean that we have to bomb the nearly the whole civilian population out of existence to end a dictatorship.

A dictatorship or terrorism does not amount to a state of war. Terrorism is not always governmental. For example the LTTE in Srilanka and Naxalite Terrorism in India.

One more thing I want to clarify. Miss Rand said that we should not initiate the means of physical force. So do we have the right to invade a country having a dictatorship in which there are no citizens of our country present nor has the dictatorship harmed us in any way?

[Sparrow]

The issue of innocent civilian causalties on the enemy side should be viewed in the full context of a war. A good clarification was provided by the Commander of the Israeli Air Force in a recent interview:

"The principle that we have to stress is that we have a deep obligation above all, as the military arm of a democratic state in this region, to defend the citizens of Israel, the Jews, Arabs, Christians and Druse. We have a deep obligation to defend our soldiers. We have a deep obligation not to hit those who are not responsible. We also have a deep obligation not to hit the other side, even if they are the enemy, needlessly."

Note the proper order: First, the civilians of one's own country, then the soldiers of one's own army, then enemy civilians "who are not responsible," finally enemy soldiers who should not be exterminated "needlessly." It is important to bear in mind that when you avoid hitting the enemy in order to save enemy civilians, you neglect your obligation to defend your own civilians from future attacks by the enemy .

[Tom Rexton]

To this comment of Dr. Peikoff in the radio show of 9/6/98.

I may be viewing this out of context and I sincerely apologize if I have misrepresented or misinterpreted any view of Dr. Peikoff.

I just want to ask whether we have the moral right to annihilate each and every person under a dictatorship.

Yes, we do. If it is absolutely necessary to do so in order to defend our rights.

Just imagine if USA had decided to destroy Soviet Union in 1920. Objectivism wouldn't even have been there if Miss Rand had died.

I believe Ayn Rand had personally said that this would have been a moral act if the rights of Americans were endagered by the Soviets. I'm not quite sure where the quote was, though.

Civilian casualties are unavoidable in war. But that doesn't mean that we have to bomb the nearly the whole civilian population out of existence to end a dictatorship.

This is NOT the issue. No one ever said we HAVE to bomb the entire population out of existence just to end any dictorship--only that IT IS A MORAL RIGHT if the entire population of that dictatorship threatened American rights. If avoiding civilian casualties will cost the lives of Americans, be it a soldier or civilian, then they must NOT be avoided.

One more thing I want to clarify. Miss Rand said that we should not initiate the means of physical force. So do we have the right to invade a country having a dictatorship in which there are no citizens of our country present nor has the dictatorship harmed us in any way?

It depends on the purpose of the invasion. The dictatorial regime certainly has no right to exist.