Standards of Justice:
Jeremy Bentham-Utilitarianism: What is the greatest good for the greatest number? For example a U.S. platoon leader
leads a strike on an enemy artillery battery. He sustains six casualties but saves at least one hundred other American
lives that would have been killed by the enemy artillery battery.
What is the utilitarian approach to warfare? Under what circumstances would it be legitimate to kill civilians?
John Stuart Mill-Liberty and Majority Rule: People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they do not
harm another person. For example, a person may choose to smoke marijuana but they cannot drive and get in an
accident. When concerning laws, the voice of the majority must be considered the final decision in all matters. In
authorizing an appeal to go to war the Congress must vote on it.
What is the “liberty” and “majority rule” approach to warfare? Under what circumstances would it be legitimate to
kill civilians?
Libertarianism:
1. In opposition to laws that protect people from harming themselves. If people want to drive their motorcycles without
a helmet and die then that is their choice.
2. No use of coercive force dealing with morals legislation. If a woman wants to be a prostitute then let her be a
prostitute.
3. No redistribution of income or wealth. Allow people to take their earnings all unto themselves.
How would a libertarian approach the military decision to kill civilians?
Immanuel Kant:
Very complicated but….
Categorical Imperative I: Universalize your maxim. This means that specifically if everyone or every nation in this
manner what would be the result. Example: What if everyone lied? What would be the outcome?
Categorical Imperative II: Treat persons as ends.
“But suppose there were something whose existence has in itself an absolute value,” as an end in itself. “Then in it, and
in it alone, would there be the ground of a possible categorical imperative.”
…”Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never
simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
What would Immanuel Kant say about the killing of civilians? Explain. How can we resolve the “universalization of
your maxim” issue and also the “means ends” dilemma?
John Rawls: The Veil of Ignorance:
Imagine yourself in a hypothetical existence whereby you do not know your identity as it is. Given the chance of
existence you need to think about yourself as having an equal chance of being a Japanese civilian, as a Japanese General,
as an American soldier or an American President. Then and only then can you think about what is right and just.
What would John Rawls say about the killing of civilians?
Justice- Aristotle
1. Justice is teleological. Defining rights requires us to figure out the telos (the purpose, end, or essential nature)
of the social practice in question.
2. Justice is honorific. To reason about the telos of a practice—or to argue about it—is, at least in part, to reason
or argue about what virtues it should honor and reward.
How would Aristotle think about the killing of civilians? What was the purpose, end, or essential nature of the act in
question? What virtues should the practice honor or reward?
Stanford Definition of Terrorism:
The Atomic Bomb:
Did the act involve violence? Did it inflict significant
physical or psychological harm?
Did the act create fear? Do the people believe that the
agent has the ability to carry out future threats?
Did the act extend to a broader audience? Is fear
generated in people other than those who were the
immediate target of the act?
Was the act purposive? Was it mindful of goals, actions
and the effect on target areas? Was it accidental?
Was the act about political power? Was the act aimed to
trying to influence elites who control structures and
institutions?
Was the act perpetrated against noncombatants? Were
civilians harmed?
Was the act instrumental? Is the act part of larger
struggle and to achieve something beyond the direct
results of the act itself?
U.S. War Department: 1940 Principles of War:
What does this code of war suggest about how to deal with the issue of killing civilians?
Sum it Up: Is the killing of civilians acceptable/justified?
Bentham
Explain:
Mill
Libertarianism Kant
Rawls
Aristotle
Stanford
U.S. War
Dept/