Morality in war is difficult
define, especially in regards to murdering the innocent citizens of the enemy
state. Prior to this week’s readings and lecture, I was partial towards
absolutist point of view. I believed that war was fought between the armed
forces and civilians took no role in the actual warfare and should not be made
an object to target during war. But after this week’s lecture I tended to lean
towards the middle of realism and absolutism in regards to waging war on
civilians depending on the circumstances of the situation.
Nagel argues that war is ethical
only if the fighting and killing was between combatant and combatant, but fighting
between combatant and noncombatant (citizen) is absolutely unethical,
regardless of the circumstances. This belief is a reflection of Morgenthau’s
statement, which says that since “war is considered between the armed forces of
the belligerent states, and since the civilian populations do not participate
actively in the armed contest, they are not to be made its object”(83). I would
agree that if the civilians are not participating in the war or not a threat to
changing the dynamic of the fighting, they should not be objected to killings
and bombings. An example of this would be the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. The citizens of Japan were in no way going to change the dynamics of
World War II, therefore they did not pose a threat and all the innocent lives
lost was unethical.
But if the situation was different,
and the actions of the citizens aiding the military would end up changing the
dynamic of the war, I believe that subjecting the citizens to war would be ethical,
as long as the citizens most definitely posed a threat. For instance, on the
western front of World War II, the mobilization of the Soviet Union’s citizens
dramatically altered the dynamic of the war. The people of the Soviet Union
were under attack from their former ally, Germany, and in response, the Soviet
citizens dug trenches, burned their own supplies so the incoming German armies
would have no supplies, joined the Red Army, and flooded into war industries. The
civilians’ heroic efforts and sacrifices ultimately led to the defeat of
Germany. In this scenario, it might prove just to wage war on the civilians as
well because they civilians “are actually able and willing to participate
actively in warfare [and] ought to be the object of deliberate armed action” as
Morgenthau stated. If the civilians do pose a huge threat, as the Soviets did
during World War II, by supplying the front lines, then it would be in the best
interest of the war effort to target civilians as well as the armed forces.
The idea that waging war on
civilians depending on the circumstances of the situation, especially the
amount of threat they pose to the war effort reflects Machiavelli’s philosophy.
In The Prince, Machiavelli cautioned
leaders to be flexible and adapt to the situations, because it is not good to
do one thing at all times. I believe that in deciding whether or not to subject
civilians to war needs to be based on this philosophy, considering all the
factors of the situation, and having the murdering of civilians as a last
resort for the war effort.
I agree with you that civilians should not be targeted during a war but it’s often difficult to know who is actually a combatant as some civilians fall into the noncombatant members but they also work to keep the country alive like farmers, miners and transport workers as their work supports those who are involved in waging war. Still they are not treated as one. Civilians also helping the war effort, who supply the troops and provide them with weapons or helping in other ways are considered as combatants. They aren’t combatants in the arms bearing sense but they do constitute a threat to the other side. With modern wars, it doesn’t make sense to distinguish the citizens who contribute directly to the war effort from those who don’t. When a nation is at war, every citizen is a combatant, and everyone is involved.
ReplyDelete