NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not talking about any particular war here, but in general.

Is it a satisfactory justification to claim that when civilians get killed in combat that those that kill the civilians (i.e. the opposing army, navy, etc.) didn't intend to kill the civilians. That is, is the army, navy, country, etc. morally responsible for killing their enemy's citizens even though they didn't intend it? If so, why and what should the punishment be (i.e. should the punishment be as simple as a recognition of guilt or some internationally sanctioned punishment)? If not, why not (i.e. what is right about this principle)

This question is thousands of years old, many having attempted to answer it to everlasting dissatisfaction. I'm of the opinion that the military forces involved in prosecuting a war are without blame, at all, for the unintentional loss of civilian life so long as they reasonably tried to mittigate it. The blame for those wronged war, which generally would include those charges with fighting it, lies with two parties. Those who allowed the political failure to drag those they're charged with serving into war, and those who lose the war.

The parties who could have avoided war and chose not to deserve the blame, and punishments for the obvious reason. The losers of the conflict deserve their lot as they were obviously derelict in their duties of preparing for and finding reasonable people to avoid a war. I can think of few circumstances where war is cheaper than the best reasonable alternative for the loser, and unavoidable for the just.

If one grants that all government, even despotism through vile extortion, gathers it's power and concent from the will of the people, all individuals bear some responsability, though diffused, for their lot in the wake and practice of war. Those who find themselves in unwelcome war, particularly if losing/having lost, need only to look to themselves and the neighbors. In the end, the true cruelty of war is that too often the few bear the whole cost for the sins of the all.

As a matter of international of law, founded in the ethical philosophy surrounding the inevitability of war, if the military forces do try to avoid shedding blood of non-combatants they're without blame. I think in part this expectation of restraint on the part of certain powers has fostered a bloodthirstiness on other more sectarian cultures. A condition similar to that which led to the wars which begot the philosophy, that created the modern practices and expectations.

Ethical aspects of War

Is like sexual aspects of virginity.

Ethical aspects of War

Is like sexual aspects of virginity.
Or the dry aspects of water.

I'm not talking about any particular war here, but in general.

Is it a satisfactory justification to claim that when civilians get killed in combat that those that kill the civilians (i.e. the opposing army, navy, etc.) didn't intend to kill the civilians. That is, is the army, navy, country, etc. morally responsible for killing their enemy's citizens even though they didn't intend it? If so, why and what should the punishment be (i.e. should the punishment be as simple as a recognition of guilt or some internationally sanctioned punishment)? If not, why not (i.e. what is right about this principle)
No, there is never a satisfactory justification for noncombattants dying in war. It's horrible when done on purpose and even more horrible when done accidentally. My principle is that it's wrong to ask people to sacrifice their lives for an idea and that it's infinitely more wrong to take people's lives for an idea.

No, there is never a satisfactory justification for noncombattants dying in war. It's horrible when done on purpose and even more horrible when done accidentally. My principle is that it's wrong to ask people to sacrifice their lives for an idea and that it's infinitely more wrong to take people's lives for an idea.

Thats true BUT what happens when some genius has the idea to take your life?

No, there is never a satisfactory justification for noncombattants dying in war. It's horrible when done on purpose and even more horrible when done accidentally. My principle is that it's wrong to ask people to sacrifice their lives for an idea and that it's infinitely more wrong to take people's lives for an idea.

How is it more horrible when accidental? If done on purpose it is highly probable that more people will be killed and in more horrible ways.

There has never been a 'clean' war in the history of warfare. Legislating punishment for soldiers who injure or kill civilians accidentally will only result in either a) soldiers not doing their job, or b) the enemy actively using civilians as a 'shield' on a recurring basis (I believe this is the opposite of what we want, yes?)

The best we can do, is to try to minimize the involvement of our militaries impacting the civilian population during war. But let's not kid ourselves, this is war, and civilian casualties always have been, and always will be a part of it.

This question is thousands of years old, many having attempted to answer it to everlasting dissatisfaction. I'm of the opinion that the military forces involved in prosecuting a war are without blame, at all, for the unintentional loss of civilian life so long as they reasonably tried to mittigate it. The blame for those wronged war, which generally would include those charges with fighting it, lies with two parties. Those who allowed the political failure to drag those they're charged with serving into war, and those who lose the war.

The parties who could have avoided war and chose not to deserve the blame, and punishments for the obvious reason. The losers of the conflict deserve their lot as they were obviously derelict in their duties of preparing for and finding reasonable people to avoid a war. I can think of few circumstances where war is cheaper than the best reasonable alternative for the loser, and unavoidable for the just.



As a matter of international of law, founded in the ethical philosophy surrounding the inevitability of war, if the military forces do try to avoid shedding blood of non-combatants they're without blame. I think in part this expectation of restraint on the part of certain powers has fostered a bloodthirstiness on other more sectarian cultures. A condition similar to that which led to the wars which begot the philosophy, that created the modern practices and expectations.


You're right, the problem has been around for a while and is now the Doctrine of Double Effect -- although this version is a little different.

I do not think that you are right in claiming that just because you start a war that you are more responsible for the death of non-combatants. Conceivably I could start a war against some nation and that nation could turn out to have a leader or a military that operates without conscience, targeting civilians at will. While my nation, on the other hand, takes many precautions to avoid civilian casualties. It seems to me that even if I start an unjust war but proceed justly and the party that has been unjustly acted and behaves within the war unjustly by purposely targeting civilians has a lot of blame on their shoulders also. Perhaps more.

Here's my claim: Lack of intention is not sufficient to claim moral blamelessness, as it were. Even if you have no intention in killing civilian casualties and you actually kill civilian casualties, then you are morally blameworthy for the loss of life. Why? Because it is always wrong to take a life even if it is a side-effect (lots of counter-examples here).

Anyway, one solution is that the party comitting the unintentional deaths must feel guilty for the deaths. This recognition of guilt is an acknowledgement of the innocent death. Hence, you can be justified in unintentionally killing civillians during war, as long as you feel a sense of guilt and, obviously, try to avoid killing civillians (the non-intention aspect).

I'm not talking about any particular war here, but in general.

Is it a satisfactory justification to claim that when civilians get killed in combat that those that kill the civilians (i.e. the opposing army, navy, etc.) didn't intend to kill the civilians. That is, is the army, navy, country, etc. morally responsible for killing their enemy's citizens even though they didn't intend it? If so, why and what should the punishment be (i.e. should the punishment be as simple as a recognition of guilt or some internationally sanctioned punishment)? If not, why not (i.e. what is right about this principle)
That's why war should never be undertaken lightly. The very purpose of war is to stop the opposing force by killing people and breaking things. To intentionally target civilians is totally unacceptable, but if civilians are harmed in the process of rooting out the opposing force, that's the price the opposing country pays for starting the conflict.

That's why war should never be undertaken lightly. The very purpose of war is to stop the opposing force by killing people and breaking things. To intentionally target civilians is totally unacceptable, but if civilians are harmed in the process of rooting out the opposing force, that's the price the opposing country pays for starting the conflict.

OK, but should you feel guilty, or do you have no moral responsibilty at all?

OK, but should you feel guilty, or do you have no moral responsibilty at all?

There should be some feeling of remorse for the loss of innocent life, certainly.

But to adopt a policy of "we will do nothing that will result in civilian death" would effectivly neuter any ability to wage war, for as soon as your enemy realizes this is your policy, they'll start putting weapons in places of worship, build barracks in the middle of cities, and effectivly ensure that their military operations are surrounded by civilians.

To put yourself in a position of never doing anything that will result in civilian death means you lose the first war where your enemy is smart enough to put civilians on every military installation.

OK, but should you feel guilty, or do you have no moral responsibilty at all?
I've only known two soldiers in my entire life who didn't feel guilty for accidentally harming civilans, and both of those are now in Levenworth.

ethics have no place in war its just good strategy to claim you follow some

ethics have no place in war its just good strategy to claim you follow some
Ethics have a very big role to play in war. Without ethics, you may win the war, but you will most assuredly lose the "peace" that follows.

I'm not talking about any particular war here, but in general.

Is it a satisfactory justification to claim that when civilians get killed in combat that those that kill the civilians (i.e. the opposing army, navy, etc.) didn't intend to kill the civilians. That is, is the army, navy, country, etc. morally responsible for killing their enemy's citizens even though they didn't intend it? If so, why and what should the punishment be (i.e. should the punishment be as simple as a recognition of guilt or some internationally sanctioned punishment)? If not, why not (i.e. what is right about this principle)

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) (Adopted on 8 June 1977)

(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm )

Article 51(7): The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Those who plan or carry out military operations from civilian areas, e.g., Hezbollah, are solely and exclusively responsible for any civilian casualties that result from attacks on military objectives in the civilian areas. And to the extent that "civilians" are actively aiding and abetting Hezbollah military activities, arguably they are no longer civilians and are legitimate targets themselves.

Indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas (e.g., Hezbollah missile attacks on Haifa, Nazareth, etc.), on the other hand, are prohibited. Article 51(4)-(5).

I'm not talking about any particular war here, but in general.

Is it a satisfactory justification to claim that when civilians get killed in combat that those that kill the civilians (i.e. the opposing army, navy, etc.) didn't intend to kill the civilians. That is, is the army, navy, country, etc. morally responsible for killing their enemy's citizens even though they didn't intend it? If so, why and what should the punishment be (i.e. should the punishment be as simple as a recognition of guilt or some internationally sanctioned punishment)? If not, why not (i.e. what is right about this principle)



In war, people die. Its a terrible thing, but unavoidable.

The ethical judgement of any event depends on three aspect, the intention, the action and the result. Different ethical system give more weight to the different aspects; for example utilitarianism cares only about the result (something is morally right if it results in a greater total 'happiness').
The big problem with collateral damage is that (at least) two moral aspects conflict: there is not the intention of harming civilians, but the result is nevertheless that they are. And therefore any two ethical system that place emphasis on the conflicting aspects will disagree violently.

Thats true BUT what happens when some genius has the idea to take your life?
I take that risk every time I walk out the door, but I'm not going to kill him because he wants to kill me.