Answer

1.      Introduction

Acts of killing during wartime, whether just or unjust war, is one of the areas that is replete with ethical and moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are generally the everyday occurrences that arise when one finds him/ self at the crossroad of deciding to do to what is morally right or do what needs to be done in the line of duty. For a long time, schools of thought in ethics have help different perspectives regarding actions and behaviors that are considered right or wrong. For instance, ethical relativists, duty ethicists, egoists maintain that whether an act is moral or immoral is context-specific; that is moral values vary across cultures and settings, and that some immoral acts can be permissible under certain circumstances.

On the other hand, virtue ethicists, and proponents of Christian value ethics and natural law ethics argue that ethics and morals are absolute, rather than relative and that people should be behave and act morally at all times regardless of the situation[1]. These divergent perspectives have sparked political, social and scholarly discourses around the issue of military killings in wars. Military killings in this context refers to the killings committed by soldiers against both combatants and civilians during war. This capstone essay looks at the different views taken by ethicists around the issue of military killings. The approaches and models discussed include virtue ethics, consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics and duty ethics.                   

2.      Moral Dilemmas Surrounding Killing in War

Soldiers encounter challenging and perplexing situations during wartime, such as ability to precisely practice discriminatory targeting. Killing is not socially or culturally relative. Rather it is universally condemned and considered an evil. Thus, many societies see acts of killing by soldiers as immoral regardless of whether those killed are enemies or innocent civilians. This means that the concept of ethical relativism cannot underpin justification of military killings.   

2.1. Killing in Just War is Permissible

Just war theory includes two sets of tenets that are “logically independent”; namely, jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The principle of jus ad bellum governs the declaration of war, while jus in bello regulates the activities, ethical principles and rules that should be followed during war[2]. This leads to two categories of war: just war and unjust war. Unlike unjust war that starts for unclear reasons, just war defines a war in which the opposing parties are fighting for a just cause. McMahan further describes a just cause as “an aim that can contribute to the justification for war and that may permissibly be pursued by means of war”[3]. Unjust war is generally considered unethical, and thus killing by unjust combatants is not supported by any ethicist group. Still, these groups are divided on whether killing in just war is permissible or not.

A section of just war theorists led by Giulio Douhet maintain that killing in war is permissible regardless of whether those killed are combatants or civilians[4]. They defend this position by arguing that citizens support a country’s war efforts by supplying armed forces with resources such as funds to finance their military activities, and thus all the citizens should be regarded as combatants. Additionally, they contend that the difference between combatants and non-combatants fades in situations of total war where every member of a nation becomes a potential target. Moreover, the fastest way to end a war, according to Douhet, is to attack the opponent’s weakest points, which include cities inhabited by civilians. This argument seems to borrow various concepts from utilitarianism. According to utilitarianism ethicists, an action or behavior is judged for morality by looking at its consequences and impacts to those affected and the rest of the society. The choice that yields the most good for the greatest number of people, or the least negative impact for the least people is considered the moral option[5] (Jones, 2012).

Building from this view, those who defend killing of both combatants and civilians in war argue that killing a few people might help to stop the war and save lives of millions who would have been killed by starvation and other war-related calamities if the war was to continue. For instance, because utilitarian thinkers believe that a moral act is that which produces the most good for the people, they have remained adamant that the decision by the United States to drop to struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki using an atomic bomb during the Second World War was permissible because it helped to end the war. They assert that the war might have taken longer and consequently claimed more lives than those killed in the atomic bombing of the cities in Japan.

2.2.Killing in Just War is only Permissible if it Targets Combatants

Purism ethicists and proponents led by Walzer and Jeff McMahan justify killing in just war by arguing that it is a form of self-defense. Walzer, for instance aptly state that soldiers have “an equal right to kill” in wartime because it’s their moral equality[6]. This position receives strong opposition from pacifists and followers of traditional just war theory who maintain that combatants have a right to kill armed opposing combatants for self-defense reasons, and not just anyone. The Geneva Convention specifies that only combatants fighting the war are the legitimate targets of onslaughts. Going by this specification and other provisions of the just war theory, it can be concluded that killing unarmed combatants who have surrendered and harmless civilians during war violate the jus in bello principle of just war, and thus constitutes a criminal offense.

As aforementioned, morality of killing in just war is conditional; that is, there are exceptions on who soldiers should target if the killing has to be justified – opposing armed combatants who threaten their lives. Turner Johnson, another advocate of discriminatory killing in just war, proposes a “presumption for justice” model in which he argues that justice, and what it calls for, in certain situations overrides the duty not to kill. He continues that, unlike the duty against killing that can be relative, justice “is the s the ever present demand and determines the morality of killing”[7]. What Johnson’s model suggests is that killing combatants in just war is a morally good act in exercising justice rather than an evil act. However, Johnson immediately adds that war should be the last resort in the quest for peace, and if such peace cannot be attained without the use of force and violence, then war must be fought within the confines of jus in bello; namely, without committing evil acts.

It is evident that Jeff McMahan, Walzer, Johnson and other defenders of discriminate killing in war are governed by or follow deontological ethics. Also called duty ethics, deontology posits that an action should be considered right or wrong based on whether it was committed under set of defined rules, rather than based on its consequences. According to Immanuel Kant, the father of duty ethics (also Kantian ethics), duty is the governing principle of ethics, and thus morality of an action must be defined on the basis of one’s duty. Putting this ethicist view in the context of killing in just war, it can be argued that soldiers have a duty to fight for their countries and win the war so that the countries can achieve peace or other cause being fought for. In the course of these wars, they are required keep in mind that it is their responsibility to protect their own lives and those of innocent civilians who might fall victims of their attacks[8]. This can be only achieved when the combatants kill their armed opposing combatants. As such, supporters of killing in just war can take a deontologist or duty ethicist position and argue that just combatants are justified in their killings because they are acting in their duty; that is, fight and kill opponents to end the war.

The stance taken by defenders of killing in just war can also be adequately from the ethical egoist perspective. Those who justify killing of opposing combatants often cite self-defense and justice as the key principles underpinning their position on just war. They contend that soldiers are permitted to kill their opponents to avoid being killed in the course of war. This position aligns with ethical egoism which insists that do a certain act if it will help you live longer, be happy or be popular[9] (Jones, 2012). Accordingly, egoists will argue that killing enemies in just war might help soldiers defend themselves and live longer.             

2.3.Killing in War is impermissible

Pacifists maintain that acts of killing in war whether just or unjust, and whether targeted at combatants or non-combatants cannot be justified. They argue the act of killing, regardless of the context or cause is intrinsically immoral. Bembaji, for instance, is of the view that killing opposing combatants in self-defense is equally impermissible, just like it is killing innocent civilians and bystanders as a way of self-defense[10]. He concludes that “a just defensive war cannot be justly fought”. Bembaji viewpoint coincide with the argument of James Childress and other Just War thinkers who take the position of “presumption against killing”. This position maintains that “there is a standing moral duty not to kill, and that at times, the duty not to kill conflicts with a similar duty to justice”[11]. Supporters of this proposition, who are also critics of killing in just war advice that people should not override their standing duty not to kill with their quest for justice. As Childress contends, killing in war is nothing but a “necessary evil” that military leaders use to attain a goal perceived to be moral.

The position taken by Childress and other pacifists in critiquing killing in war is supported by natural law ethics, virtue ethics and Christian value ethics. According to natural law ethicists, people experiencing moral dilemmas should seek guidance from their rational consideration and conscience in order to adequately distinguish right from wrong. Since natural law condemns killing regardless of the circumstances surrounding the act, people generally believe that killing is immoral and evil. This partly explains why pacifists and proponents of “presumption against killing” maintain that individual always have a duty not to kill, and that this duty should remain effective even in times and situations when the demands of justice are at the peak[12]. According to this standpoint, combatants who commit killing in war, whether just or unjust, are simply murderers who are permitted to get away with their acts of crime.

Critiques of killing in war also build their arguments from the Christian value ethics. Christian value ethicists believe that people can best deal with most ethical dilemmas through careful interpretation of the teachings, prohibitions and commands in the Bible. This may involve applying meta-ethics stipulated in the Bible directly to the moral dilemma at hand or looking for general principles in the Bible from which they can make inferences on issues that the Bible does not address directly. Those who condemn acts of killing in war can, therefore, effectively use the fifth commandment – “you shall not kill”, to defend their position[13] (Becking, 2011). Although supporters of the act might argue that there are exceptions to this commandment such as capital punishment and killing of opponents in war, killings is condemned throughout the Bible, and those who kill always remain with psychological scars regardless of the reasons behind the killing. This implies that killing is intrinsically immoral and the standing obligation not to kill cannot be suspended because of the situation at hand.       

3.      Conclusion

Knowledge of ethical principles is of paramount importance to help people deal with a wide range of ethical and moral dilemmas they encounter in their everyday undertakings. These principles are embedded in various theories and models of moral reasoning such as consequentialism, natural law ethics, deontology, virtue ethics and Christian law ethics that can be used as the basis for arguing in support of or against different positions on a certain ethical dilemma. Acts of killing in war are among the most contentious issues and key moral dilemmas that have attracted the interests of ethicists, political leaders and philosophy and sociology scholars. A section of Just War thinkers and ethicists maintain that killing in just war permissible regardless of whether it targets combatants or non-combatants. This groups is governed by utilitarianism and believe that killing a few people can help end a given war quickly and save thousands of lives.

On the other hand, those who argue that killing is permissible provided that it targets opposing combatants, and is committed with an intention of self-defense follow deontological ethics and ethical egoism. The last group condemns killing in war despite the circumstances and uses natural law and Christian value ethics to argue that killing human beings is intrinsically evil, and thus can never be permissible.        

[1] Jones, Michael. “Moral Reasoning: An Intentional Approach to Distinguishing Right from Wrong”. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. (2017).

[2] McMahan, Jeff. "The ethics of killing in war." Philosophia 34, no. 1 (2006): 23-41.

[3] See McMahan. “The ethics of killing in war” 23-41

[4] BBC. "In an Ethical War, Whom Can You Fight?" BBC - Home. Last modified 2018. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/whom_1.shtml.

[5] See Jones, “Moral Reasoning” for more details on utilitarianism theory.

[6] Walzer, Michael. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic books, 2015. (p. 41)

[7] Magnusen, S. "Killing As a Moral Good." RealClearDefense - Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls. Last modified October 8, 2015. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/10/08/killing_as_a_moral_good_108556.html

[8] McMahan, Jeff. "Innocence, Self‐Defense and Killing in War." Journal of Political Philosophy      2, no. 3 (1994): 193-221.

[9] Jones, “Moral Reasoning”

[10] Benbaji, Yitzhak. "The responsibility of soldiers and the ethics of killing in war." The Philosophical Quarterly 57, no. 229 (2007): 558-572.

[11] Magnusen. "Killing As a Moral Good."

[12] Walzer. Just and unjust wars

[13] See Becking, Bob. "What Forms of Life are to be protected? Exegetical Remarks on Patrick Miller's Interpretation of the Fifth (or Sixth) Commandment for more information on the fifth commandment.