In War and Massacre, Thomas Nagel states that the most common moral issue raised by the handling of warfare is the problem of means and ends (W&M 52). This problem is formed when one goes through the dilemma in which one believes that by taking a certain measure, its gains will outweigh its costs, however because of one’s moral intuition, one then suspects that the initial plan should be abandoned(W&M 52). Take, for example, that by bombing a village where several terrorists were believed to be residing, while this action may prevent more disasters, the lives of hundreds of innocent bystanders will also be obliterated in the process. According to Nagel, this dilemma is produced by the two conflicting categories of moral reason, utilitarian and absolutist. Utilitarianism is concerned with what will occur and absolutism is concerned with one’s actions (W&M 52). The difference between utilitarianism and absolutism is in its choices for certain means or ends.
Concerned with one’s actions in warfare, Nagel argues that there are moral restrictions on which the rules of war are based. He points out that the two types of absolutist restrictions on the conduct of war are the legitimate target that hostility can be directed to and the level of hostility that can be used on the target (W&M 67). Given the attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nagel argues that by attacking the civilian population who pose no threat at all, the United States is wrongfully directing their hostility to the enemy’s vulnerable area when their hostility should be directed instead at the enemy’s government and military forces (W&M 68). Also, by dropping two indiscriminate instruments of death, one is treating one’s enemy and the civilians with very little of the respect that all human beings deserve (W&M 68). To define the first absolutist restriction, Nagel distinguishes between the combatants and the non-combatants based on their immediate threat or harmfulness (W&M 69). He rules out women and children as non-combatants, including the unarmed men and the supporting personnel who only cater to the needs of the combatants (W&M 69). For the second absolutist restriction, Nagel extends the idea that atomic bombs and other cruel weapons like starvation, poisoning, infectious diseases or weapons that are designed to disfigure, maim, or torture people, should not be used because they do not attempt to discriminate in their effects between the combatant and the human being (W&M 70). Nagel concludes the absolutist restrictions with the idea that even if the conflict is not between two military armies or governments but instead, the entire nation, this does not justify either side to combat against every aspect of the other nation (W&M 71).
This thought reminded me of the present day war between terrorism and the Western World. It also called to mind of the recent major bombing of Moscow’s subway station by a seventeen year old widow looking to avenge for her terrorist husband. It turns out her situation is not unique in that there has been a new phenomenon of “Black Widows” or young women recruited by terrorist organizations to be sent off as human bombs to kill the Russian civilians. This method of “war” would be totally new to Nagel because women and, in this case, children are no longer considered only non-combatants. Nagel would also disapprove of this method of war because the terrorists are targeting the civilians, rather than directly at their true aim, modernization. But how does one combat modernization? However, one can also argue that the war between terrorism and the Western World is not the same kind of war that Nagel was referring to. Still, I would say that war is war and all warfare should involve the moral restrictions.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Nagel’s reading also reminded me of our current conflicts in the middle-east and the outrage expressed at the CIA for their recent water-boarding scandal. It also reminded me, oddly enough, of Fordham. Earlier this month the director of the National Clandestine Service came to our fair University to give a lecture on leadership (he is a Fordham Alum). When the question of how one defines terrorism came up, the ex-CIA official asked to come up to podium stated that “…there is good terrorism and there is bad terrorism…”
It is this statement that illustrates the utilitarian mindset perfectly. This statement, just like utilitarianism, leaves “large portions of ethics unaccounted for” (Nagel 53). Nagel seems to be trying to find an absolutist view that accounts for the missing aspects of ethics that utilitarianism ignores. I agree with you, Wei-Wei, that Nagel would have a thing or two to say about the current methods of operation terrorists employ and who it is they are deciding to target. Yes, it is very difficult to come up with another method of combating “modernization.” It is also very difficult to think of other ways our agencies can combat terrorism effectively. However, like Nagel says, “There seems to be a perfectly natural conception of the distinction between fighting clean and fight dirty.” Despite any utilitarian principles employed, we cannot ignore that there is an ethical dilemma that requires serious attention when both sides are forced to fight dirty.
The final quote in my comment comes from page 63 of War and Massacre. Sorry about that.
As Tom stated, it is very much like the conflicts that are happening this very moment. How can one follow utilitarianism? How does one act on something without thinking about ones action and the consequences that are the result. We must think about both the means and the ends, and be concerned, not only about trying to protect the country by killing the terrorists, but by what we are doing to the innocent. If people continue to live that way that isnt considered moral and only bad will break loose. Nagel extends the idea that atomic bombs and other cruel weapons like starvation, poisoning, infectious diseases or weapons that are designed to disfigure, maim, or torture people, should not be used because they do not attempt to discriminate in their effects between the combatant and the human being (W&M 70).As stated, this does not justify anything and never will I think that doing things only thinking about what will occur will only make things worse. Yes war is war, but we must think about the ends as much as we think about everything else.
It is interesting to ask what Nagel would think of a war on "terror" or on "modernization". In his argument he refers largely to war between groups of people, rather than ideas. I suppose that, from an absolutist standpoint, the only way to morally conduct a war on terror would be to specifically target terrorist groups. Perhaps terrorist could combat modernization by targeting industries and the like, rather than civilians. In any case, I agree that no matter what kind of war is being fought, the moral restrictions should apply; primarily, only combatants and threats should be targeted in attacks.
It is true that in any unavoidable immoral situation, one is urged to employ the most humane execution method; the needs of the many over the needs of the few. However Utilitarianism is not at all concerned with the means. From an absolutist or teleological point of view, yes, the means would be a necessary concern, especially in warfare. However, in a war, trust, peace, and respect are aspects that many are hard-pressed to adopt. After all, a war is only fought for utilitarinist reasons to begin with. Whether for an acquisition of foreign resources, for revenge, or even for honor, warfare is entered into for reasons regardless of the inevitable loss of many lives. A true absolutist would be against war as a whole, let alone the threat of guerilla tactics. We may then say that war in general is a utilitarian concept. The soldiers in this country that lost their lives fought for hidden weapons that were said to be threatening the welfare of this country. No such resources were found and soldiers continue to die in order to protect our interests…the problem with this war are the debatable reasons for fighting it. If the reasons were immoral to begin and the ends are immoral…should the tactics matter?
I agree with Stephanie when she syas that wars are fought for utilitarinist reasons. Since utilitarianism is not concerned with the means and is only concerned with the outcome of a moral action, utilitarianism and war tend to go hand in hand. In my opnion absolutism seems be a more respectable method of war. Unlike utilitarianism, absolutism has restrictions that protect the innocent and uninvolved lives during war. Absolutism seems to be almost like an old school way to approach war.
Here I have to disagree with Nagel's examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the military has a defined set of rules that they must abide by, war is something that contains no rules. In war, each side will do whatever it takes to win the battle. If winning the battle means killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, then the United States will do it. In the best case scenario, war would be a weapon or tool only used to eliminate the specified target and finish the war. In reality, the collateral damage is taken into effect with every war and is seen as being worth the lives lost in order for a military victory. In conclusion, I think Nagel's exmaple of war is not the best because of the absence of law and morals when it comes to warfare.
To answer your question Stephanie, you should first look at what utilitarian’s try to strive for. They strive for a universal goodness and I agree with you to an extent, that if we continue to use the war example, if there is no universal good which may come out of the war then the tactics to fight the war are useless to a point. The reason I say to a point is you do not want to increase the deaths of civilians and innocent people just because it is for an unjust cause. I think Nagel would definitely disagree with you because he would say that the innocent who are dying are non-combatants who should be safe from the horrors of war. He would say only the combatants should be the targets of attacks. However Nagel would agree with you if the tactics only injured or killed combatants. To bring in another point which was made earlier in the blog was how Nagel would respond to the new type of combatants such as young children and men, whom he considered to be non-combatants. I think he would have changed his idea of who was a combatant not based on age and gender, but rather on who was actually fighting the war and who was trying to survive the war. Nagel says that if a war is not just fought between two armies but rather between two nations, no one can look to take the life of someone from the other nation just because they are from the other nation. That is why I think he would completely disagree with you and say that the tactics do matter because if innocent people are killed just in order to win a war, it is unjust and against everything he argues for.
The absolutist view is one that, although I absolutely (haha) agree with, is implausible in today’s world. As Tom quotes, Nagel argues “there seems to be a perfectly natural conception of the distinction between fighting clean and fight dirty.” The last war I can think of that could be considered “clean” is the American Civil War. However, as Stephanie points out, and I agree, all wars are Utilitarian in nature and, as such, even this war was not an absolutist war. Furthermore, it seems to me that such distinction between wars (“dirty” and “clean) has become even more ambiguous in the forms wars take today. Take the war on terror, for example, or even the women terrorists in Russia. These wars fight ideologies instead of clearly define enemies. One could even argue that people that would conventionally be considered innocent, such as average civilians, are just as guilty in ideological war. After all, any member of an ideology could be considered part of the war, regardless of their active role. A terrorist would be likely to claim that any American citizen is an enemy simply by virtue of subscribing to the American ideology. Of course these are generalizations and extremist, radical views, yet, they serve to show the ambiguity inherent in today’s conflicts. How can we distinguish between innocent bystanders and guilty combatants? Although Nagel applies his idea of “fighting clean” to both sides and brings maintains the possibility of a clear distinction, war are just not always fought in clear-cut ways. As such, an absolutist approach is hardly unwavering when considering today’s conflicts.
Following up on what a number of comments have mentioned, I want to address the issue of a "dirty" fight. How does the utilitarian see the use of small missiles from drones to assassinate particular people? In the case of the war on "terror", this is terrorist leaders from anti-U.S. groups. Can this be considered a type of "clean" murder and thus a "clean" war? Nevertheless, it is clear that sometimes the people targeted have been missed, and other people have been killed. Also, this may not be as "good" for the war because in the process of attacking other bystanders. However, some of the "innocent bystanders" have come to light as terrorist accomplices.
War will always be discussed as a way to decide what is moral and immoral during a battle with another country or even a single man. As the old saying goes, “All is fair in love and war.” If one were to follow this saying, the morality of each action within the battle field would not matter; instead, the outcome would be the only thing that mattered. However, Wei Wei you are implying that morality should play a key role in the plans of war. In this new day and age, I believe that Wei Wei is correct because if we are to act without thinking about the lives and happiness of others eventually our world will be destroyed because of the nuclear power we have been able to produce.
I agree with what has been the general consensus, morality should definitely play a role in warfare and warfare does seems to be based in consequentialism. But, I’m still not sold on the idea that war and utilitarianism go hand in hand. Yes, utilitarianism is concerned with actions, which are judged morally based only on the outcome. However, as we’ve said, utilitarianism is also concerned with what is good for the most people. In this distinction I find it difficult to call warfare strictly utilitarian. In war, all participating combatants might agree that the ends justify the means, but I’m guessing that’s only in so far as the ends are in their own favor. So, war isn’t really utilitarian in that it’s not concerned with what’s best for the most people, but what’s best for most of “our own people” (where “our own people” refers to whichever side of combatants you side with). I don’t believe utilitarianism specifies that happiness for everyone only prescribes within nations, ideologies or races, rather than to all rational beings. If I had to guess what the general outcome of every war has been (for the “winner”, as well as the “loser”), I would say widespread despair, if only for a while. There is no happy outcome of war. So, can the ends justify the means? Perhaps, eventually.
War is no doubt a difficult subject to discuss especially in terms of morality and justification. I strongly agree with the previous comment that being that War is not utilitarianism because it is only looking for your own people not the greater good of the people. In answering your question of how does one morally combat modernization; I believe that one must take a consequential stand point. In other words, you must look at the consequence of the actions no matter how modern and technologically advanced weapons and warfare become. Granted that they weapons are only becoming more and more powerful, thus those who use them must be even more morally conscience of their actions.
I think the main problem with this issue is the evolution of war tactics. Back in ancient times and even during the civil war, opposing sides presented themselves to the other and battles occurred mainly in designated areas. If the collection of terrorists in the world sent word to president Obama they were all willing to fight at some certain place, we wouldn't be having these debates.
However, the ancient notion of honor in battle has been replaced by the desire to win with minimal casualties. This means that fighting companies (including US troops) are using civilian areas and secluded places to give themselves the best advantage in battle.
This, in fact, changes the whole situation. It becomes impossible to separate those guilty and innocent in war. I think Nagel may need to re-investigate the problem taking into account this evolution.
I think Nagel's comments are still valid today but only in theory. He is correct in his assertion that women and children are non-combatants and that weapons like the atomic bomb are indiscriminate. Both of these assertions are well recognized by international law and the WWII generals have been quoted on record as having said that if the US had lost the war, they would've been tried as war criminals for the bombings of Japan. What this all boils down to is the fact that there is a difference between theory and practicality. In theory, it is easy to point out the most moral way to carry out the most heinous act, war. In practice however, when regular human beings are faced with life and death, they can only concern themselves with survival. Instead of debating between utilitarianism, absolutism or any other "-ism," the most moral combatants are likely to only choose the lesser of any two evils, whatever that may be. The goal of any moral nation at war will always be to minimize civilian casualties but as war becomes increasingly urban and the definition of "combatant" becomes skewed, it will become more and more difficult to do so.
I agree that ideological wars would require Nagel to reconsider his conception of morality in the rules of war. I am not sure, however, that Nagel would have to alter his system of wartime morality due to the fact that today's women and children fight in wars. Nagel's argument claims that, in addition to women and children, "unarmed men and the supporting personnel who only cater to the needs of the combatants" should be considered non-combatants (W&M 69). It seems that (since Nagel includes certain men as non-combatants) gender plays no role in establishing whether or not a person is a non-combatant. I don't think that Nagel would insist on labeling a woman/child a non-aggressor just because of his/her gender/age. Instead, I think that Nagel simply didn't consider the fact that women and children WOULD ever become aggressors. Even though he was wrong, I don't think that this mistake calls for a reevaluation of his code of wartime morality. Instead, I think Nagel should have been more careful to avoid flawed generalizations.
I agree with Alex when he says that the mistake of women and children becoming agressors would not call for a reevalutation of his code of wartime morality. Rather than avoiding flawed generalizations I would just say that he was a little behind. One can still generalize about the code of wartime morality for war can still be generalized as an organizaed violent conflict between humans. The premise will never change, only the people involved in the conflict. So maybe he would need to reevaluate his war morality because of these new changes. However, once one truly states what wartime morality may be, it will always be a generalization and the code will always be changing.
I agree with what Wei-Wei states in her blog entry. Warfare should include moral restrictions. It may seem impractical to many people because in the moment of warfare and combat, one may not have much time to think through one's actions. Yet, a moral code and moral beliefs are something that we have inculcated in us because it's what we believe. So in a moment of combat it would be second nature to not kill innocent women and children. One's target should be just the terrorists or the enemies at hand. It is not justified in bombing innocent villages because perhaps all of potential terrorists will be dealt with. The ends do not justify the means. A human life is still a life and it should be respected, especially if it's innocent people like women and children.
I agree with Mike in saying that Hiroshima and Nagisaki are innaappropriate, yet easily confused examples. Yes there was utilitarianism involved in the decision to drop the nukes, but there was also moral decision making in there. People tend to forger that by dropping those bombs, millions of lives were saved, both Japanese and American. The only other option would have been a brutal campaign to conquer the island. In war you already in a tough moral situation. Sometime neither choice is 100% morally justifiable, but one choice is better. What we, however, really have to decide is what means are willing to except to win, that will not destroy the idea that we are fighting for? By using weapons in today's world that kill civilians, would be in turn destroying our own perception of what we stand for? I think in today's world, at least in America, actions in war cannot just be justified by saying they will make us win. They are only justifiable of they allow us to win, while not sacrificing what we believe we stand for. Thats why i feel from a Western country's perspective being a utilitarian and absolutist can be the same.
It may be more precise to say that terrorists—in our views typically Islamic fundamentalists—are more against secularism/democracy than 'modernization.' Modernization is related to these, but of course could presumably be OK so long as it conformed to Islamic law. To fight democracy, then, in a direct or “clean” way could possibly involve persuading the ‘enemy’ of the greater benefit of your own views. But under strict Islamic interpretations, the direct way could be interpreted as coercing or eliminating the enemy entirely. Even when we apply this argument, it seems as though attacking pedestrians or subway-goers seems to hardly fulfill the criterion of eliminating democracy or spreading Islam. For those engaging in terrorist attacks, there must be some realization of the ends or effects of their actions—and hence must have some degree of utility calculation involved. Think of public statements made by bin Laden or other leaders—there is always a hint of a goal or end towards which they are striving.
I am always weary of the fact that the masses of our nation are always so quick to label someone as a "terrorist" merely because the media has labeled a group/individual as one. I have become more and more aware of the fact that the US has proven to be at the moment one of the most - if not the most militaristic country in the world. Consequently, this, combined with the fact that our own government has evidently been involved in a number of assassinations (i.e. Martin Luther King Jr. and President JFK), only leads me to the conclusion that the US itself is capable of taking part in terrorist-like crimes. Our use of the atomic bombs exemplifies such acts of terrorism: we, as US citizens refereed to 9/11 as a terrorist attack, which had a minute impact when compared to that of the atomic bombs we dropped on Japan.
I believe that, indeed, when in war, to help avoid such terroristic acts, the focus should be on the enemy itself. However, I would have to disagree with some people above who claimed to stay away from women and children. I contend this merely because in some instances, there are women and children who are also part of the enemy, insofar as they are creating as much violence as the men. As a Western society who claims such emphasis on women's equality, I think it right to stop making such assumptions wherein which women are never capable of being the enemy.
I agree with the last comment about the unfair media labelling of "terrorists." I think Nagel describes this concept articulately as he explains "to fight dirty is to direct one's hostility or aggression not at its proper object, but at a peripheral target which may be more vulnerable , and through which the proper object can be attacked indirectly." This concise definition of what not to do in war can translate into simpler situations in everyday life. Nagel basically advocates for a direct response to the problem at hand, instead of a superficial and contrived reaction. For example, don't squeeze your roommate's salon shampoo out when you're in the shower, if you're mad at her for borrowing a shirt. By Nagel's definition, the passive aggressive actions also include the bombardment of civillians in times of war. Clearly, these are two very different scenarios suggested, but Nagel expresses an excellent point in his articulate definition about how one should act in all situations.
Sorry the above citation comes from (Nagel 63).
Post a Comment