”The Ethics of War” 4.forelesning

Summary of 3.lecture Three ways of justifying the rules of war (1)Rule-utilitarian (Brandt): ideal rules of war are those which would be accepted by rational, impartial persons who believe that their country will at some point be at war. The ideal rules of war are morally justified but may diverge from (a) moral norms outside of war and (b) from the actual (legal) rules of war

Summary cont. (2) Convention-dependent rules of war (Mavrodes): The rules of war are compromises to reduce costs. They genererate obligations because they exist (like driving on the right hand of the road), but have no independent moral status. May diverge from moral rules.

Summary cont. (3) Absolutism (deontology):The rules of war reflect absolute moral rules. They can only be justified with reference to absolute moral rules – no compromises! To treat people as they deserve. Justice. Morality as inter-personal. But does it apply to war?

Acts of war A legitimate act of war is always and only directed against military objectives (included armed forces) A war crime is an illegitimate act of war = (1) directly attacking someone who is immune (Civilians, pow’s, wounded and surrendered soldiers) (2) Cruel, unneccessary acts against leg targets (excessive harm)

Jus in bello (conventionalist view) (1)Discrimination (2)Proportionality (3)Double effect

(1) The principle of discrimination ”Once war has begun, soldiers are subject to attack at any time (unless wounded or captured)” (Wars, 138) ”Non-combatants cannot be attacked at any time” (Wars, 151)

(2) Proportionality Sigdwick’s twofold rule against excessive harm (1)Harm only permitted when significantly conducive to victory (military necessity) (2) Harm only permitted to a degree that is significantly conducive to victory (m.n. weighted against other interests)

Discrimination Principle of generic consistency: any discrimination must be grounded in a morally relevant difference What, if any, is/are the morally relevant difference(s) between combatants and civilians?

Discrimination 1: Immunity Bystanders of battle Not engaged in war effort Approximate combatants Naked versus wounded soldiers

Discrimination 2: non-immunty To be a legitimate target implies that one can be killed All soldiers are legitimate targets Only soldiers have a right to kill No distinction between combatants! Soldiers are morally equal

Rights The right to life is fundamental Civilians retain their right to life Soldiers forfeit their right to life.. …Or exchange it for a right to kill What are the grounds for the forfeiture?

Gruppediskusjon OPPGAVE 1 Se på følgende påstander fra representanter for det konvensjonalistiske synet (sml gjerne med Walzer og Anscombe) “when we see [the enemy soldier] at rest, we assume that he is thinking of home and peace, as we would be. If that is so, how can it be justified to kill him? Yet it is justified” (Walzer 143) “The difference is between those who make what soldiers need to fight and those who do not… is that the former are assimilated to the class of soldiers – partly assimilated, I should say, because these are not armed men, ready to fight, and so they can be attacked only in their factory (not in their homes), when they are actually engaged in activities threatening and harmful to their enemies. (Ibid) “A farmer growing what which may be eaten by the troops is not ‘supplying (troops) with the means of fighting’” (Anscombe 67). Spørsmål: 1) Finnes det moralsk relevante forskjeller mellom ikke-immune ”nakne” soldater og (delvis) immune sivile som bidrar til krigsmaskineriet (for eksempel ved våpenproduksjon), og som kan drepes for eksempel mellom kl 8-16? som kan rettferdiggjøre forskjellsbehandling? I så fall, hvilke og hvorfor? Hvis ikke, hvorfor ikke? 2) Finnes det moralsk relevante forskjeller mellom (delvis) immune sivile som bidrar til krigsmaskineriet og absolutt immune sivile som produserer mat og helsetjenester for soldatene som kan rettferdiggjøre forskjellsbehandling? I så fall, hvilke og hvorfor? Hvis ikke, hvorfor ikke? 3) Finnes det moralsk relevante forskjeller mellom ”nakne soldater” og soldater i kamp som kan rettferdiggjøre forskjellsbehandling? I så fall, hvilke og hvorfor? Hvis ikke, hvorfor ikke?

Gruppearbeid OPPGAVE 2 Hva er mulige moralsk relevante forskjeller mellom sivile og soldater, som kan rettferdiggjøre at sivile ikke er legitime mål, mens soldater er det? Gi argumenter for og eventuelt imot forskjellsbehandling mellom sivile og soldater. En mulig vinkling: soldater har mistet sin rett til liv (jfr Walzer ), mens sivile ikke har mistet den. Hvordan kan man begrunne denne påstanden?

Innocent aggresssor A psychotic man comes towards you with an axe. Voices in his head tell him that your are Satan incarnated and he believes it to be his duty to annihilate you. He aims at you with the intention to kill you. Are you permitted to kill him in self- defence? Is he permitted to counter- defend himself against you? Why/not?

Innocent threat You are laying on your deck, sunbathing. A fat man is sitting in the cliff-top park above your house. Suddenly he rolls of his chair and falls toward you. If he hits you he will crush you and you will die, but he will save his life. Your only chance to save yourself is to change the direction of your awning and deflect him down to the road where he will die. Are you permitted to change the direction of your awning? If the fat man had a remote control to your awning, would he be permitted to use it? Why/not?