The common distinction Nagel and Kagan argue, in terms of war, is the distinction between intending harm and merely foreseeing harm. This argument is held up in the example with two patients dying from the same disease. If the doctor gives the medicine to one patient and the other dies as a result then he [the doctor] did not intend harm. It was a consequence of natural results.
If we take this argument and shift it to Full Metal Jacket, then we see a huge violation of this principle. The soldiers literally pray to their rifles and constantly chant about being killers. This shows that their intent in Vietnam is very clear - kill anyone and everyone they can that they think are the enemies. Later, killing the sniper was not morally justified in terms of war. On page 306, Nagel writes, "hostility and aggression should be directed at its true object." After his friends' death, Animal Mother asks if he wants justice, implying that they should take the sniper out as a result. Joker's frustrations were with the war, not with the sniper, especially when he could have let her go. As for Kagan, when it comes to being morally decisive, intending good and justifying the killing must outweigh the act of intending harm. In this sense, nothing justified killed the sniper for Joker, yet he did it anyways.
Knowing this definition, what type of war would truly be justified? As Nagel strongly mentioned, the Vietnam War was not justified enough to allow the soldiers and government clearance for moral justification. They were killing innocent civilians. This site shows that civilians deaths outweighed the deaths of Vietnamese military personnel. Did the harm of civilians really outweigh the good? There did not seem to be much morality to help defend this. As Nagel says, there is no justification, ever, in killing innocent civilians and the American government would not be allowed to say that they were morally right in their slaughter.
Nagel and Kagan both acknowledge that if intending good outweighs the intending harm, then morality is solved. With that being said, I propose that revolutions are almost always on the justified side of war. It is easy for a government to overthrow its citizens (much like what happened with Syria) by the misuse of weapons. Again, for Nagel, those chemical weapons and bombs violate the morality of war. However, civilian revolutions are more likely to handle things with morality, with their attacks less guided towards other civilians and directed at the perpetrators. For example, in the case of Syria, the Syrian Free Army joined the war without the intent to harm others, but they knew that it was going to be impossible to stay neutral and not contribute to the bloodshed. They only inflicted harm when harm was done to them. Otherwise, they were willing to leave things alone and get their government back via peaceful protests. The Syrian Free Army did not engage in unjustified killing like the president did. When they did kill others, it was certainly justified, and aimed at protecting other citizens around them. In this case, morality seems to be upheld, since it meets both Nagel's and Kagan's justification for war. Much like the patient example used above, they are merely the doctors, distributing medicine to the country of Syria. The soldiers deaths are a natural cause of the war that they originally started. It seems to me that this might be one of the only cases in which war is justified.
If we take this argument and shift it to Full Metal Jacket, then we see a huge violation of this principle. The soldiers literally pray to their rifles and constantly chant about being killers. This shows that their intent in Vietnam is very clear - kill anyone and everyone they can that they think are the enemies. Later, killing the sniper was not morally justified in terms of war. On page 306, Nagel writes, "hostility and aggression should be directed at its true object." After his friends' death, Animal Mother asks if he wants justice, implying that they should take the sniper out as a result. Joker's frustrations were with the war, not with the sniper, especially when he could have let her go. As for Kagan, when it comes to being morally decisive, intending good and justifying the killing must outweigh the act of intending harm. In this sense, nothing justified killed the sniper for Joker, yet he did it anyways.
Knowing this definition, what type of war would truly be justified? As Nagel strongly mentioned, the Vietnam War was not justified enough to allow the soldiers and government clearance for moral justification. They were killing innocent civilians. This site shows that civilians deaths outweighed the deaths of Vietnamese military personnel. Did the harm of civilians really outweigh the good? There did not seem to be much morality to help defend this. As Nagel says, there is no justification, ever, in killing innocent civilians and the American government would not be allowed to say that they were morally right in their slaughter.
Nagel and Kagan both acknowledge that if intending good outweighs the intending harm, then morality is solved. With that being said, I propose that revolutions are almost always on the justified side of war. It is easy for a government to overthrow its citizens (much like what happened with Syria) by the misuse of weapons. Again, for Nagel, those chemical weapons and bombs violate the morality of war. However, civilian revolutions are more likely to handle things with morality, with their attacks less guided towards other civilians and directed at the perpetrators. For example, in the case of Syria, the Syrian Free Army joined the war without the intent to harm others, but they knew that it was going to be impossible to stay neutral and not contribute to the bloodshed. They only inflicted harm when harm was done to them. Otherwise, they were willing to leave things alone and get their government back via peaceful protests. The Syrian Free Army did not engage in unjustified killing like the president did. When they did kill others, it was certainly justified, and aimed at protecting other citizens around them. In this case, morality seems to be upheld, since it meets both Nagel's and Kagan's justification for war. Much like the patient example used above, they are merely the doctors, distributing medicine to the country of Syria. The soldiers deaths are a natural cause of the war that they originally started. It seems to me that this might be one of the only cases in which war is justified.
I like you points and thought process here but just to play Devil's advocate I think that even revolutionary wars being justified or not can be a blurry line as much as any other war. A few example come to mind to me. First would be the United States Civil war. Here the South believed they were being persecuted and desired to leave the union. They believed themselves no different than the founding fathers and their war for independence. Yet, the nation remaining united and the abolishment of slavery are for the most part agreed to better moral standing now. The rationales for war tend to be very complicated and mess. More over the Victor of the War often has the privilege of claiming there side just and writing the history books. This all being said, I still agree that there are situations where war and violence are justified. The War in Syria is a clear example and much could be said for World War 2 as well. Dealing with power hungry madmen is often difficult to impossible to deal with no violently.
ReplyDeleteYour points follow in a linear and understandable fashion, however, I am unsure if you can claim the Syrian Free Army as justified due to their civilian background. This at face value, is not entirely true, as civilians were peaceful protesters and the Syrian Free Army are made of military personnel trained by the government who have deserted.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do not understand the meaning behind assuming all civilians will revert to peaceful protest or will only attack the direct target—if this is true, why are there school shootings and other horrific atrocities committed by civilians? If they are protesting their government, this would not make sense, as it would be harming other civilians first.
Good post, just some questions brought to mind!