When is an action right/just/correct?

bonkey

Here's the scenario...


Today, in some nation, a number of civilians were killed in the furtherment of the strategic aims of one of the factions in the current ongoing struggle.

In a statement released to the press, the responsible faction declared that while it regretted the loss of innocent life, it was an action which the other faction had ultimately left it no choice but to take in the greater pursuit of protecting that which the faction believes in.


Here's my question...

Without knowing the tactical details of the situation, nor which side did the killing, nor which faction the civilians would be best considered to be associated with, nor what it is that is being protected save that the side carrying out the killing believes in it.....can you condemn and/or excuse the action? Is it right or wrong? Just or unjust? Correct or incorrect?

(I know I'm being vague, but I'm not looking to limit the answer by my choice of right/wrong terms)
Ultimately, I pretty much expect the answers to this will break down into two factions. There will be those that will say its unequivacably wrong (even if it is sometimes the least worst option and/or unavoidable), and there will be those that will basically want to know more details such as what beliefs were being protected, what the tactical aims were, etc.

Increasingly, it seems to me that both the protrayal and the acceptance of an action are both ultimately based on agreement with the underlying principles that the action is attempting to further, rather than on the merits of the action itself. I'm neither convinced that this is right nor wrong as a stance but I just thought it might make for some interesting discussion.

This may be more relevant elsewhere as its perhaps not really a political question, but I thought this would be a good place to kick things off.

tomMK1

i dont know what the answer is. say in WW2, something happened to resotre order somewhere and that action killed civillians. can you say the action was just as it restored order, or was it bad cus it killed someone?

tricky question

Kingsize

"left it no choice"is the key phrase here...
although based on real experience i would say that the "regret" expressed by the responsible faction would be dismissed as "cynical" by the oppposing faction & it's allies & they would probably also go on to say that what happened was designed primarily to kill innocent people.

oscarBravo

I'm finding it hard to think of a scenario where I wouldn't unequivocally condemn such killings. As Kingsize has said, "no choice" is a key phrase: I would contend that there is always a choice, and that the killers choose to prioritise that which they believe in over the lives of civilians.

I've been known to express some strong views here, but I honestly can't think of anything I believe in enough to bring myself to kill innocent people over.

Boggle

Normally "they were left no choice" means that it was the easiest way to inflict damage. I.e. it was easier to blindly bomb rather than to shoot whereby they run the risk of getting shot back.

I can only imagine extreme circumstances whereby civilian loss could be deemed "right". Can you give more details as it's a bit vague. Do you mean one govt attacking another / a terrorist group looking to further its goals / a govt trying to get at terrorists...?

tomMK1

i think no-one glories in innocent deaths, but in wars deaths of innocent people happen. I doubt if theres any country in the world today that hasnt killed innocent people in its history ... but that doesnt mean anyone likes the idea of innocent people dying (just my 2 cents)

ionapaul

there will be those that will basically want to know more details such as what beliefs were being protected, what the tactical aims were, etc.

I suppose I am in this camp. I cannot form any judgement on the action, factions or aims without knowing more about all three.

tomMK1

but if by getting that info it proved to be 'legal' to accidentally kill civillians (as in a 'legal' army) - would that make it more morally right to do so than an 'illegal' army doing the same thing?

ie, how will that information help you decide if its wrong or not?

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Without knowing the tactical details of the situation, nor which side did the killing, nor which faction the civilians would be best considered to be associated with, nor what it is that is being protected save that the side carrying out the killing believes in it.....can you condemn and/or excuse the action? Is it right or wrong? Just or unjust? Correct or incorrect?

This is more a philosophical than a political question. Morality is straightforward enough when it applies only to our own lives and those around us but when your actions, or inactions, invariably lead to the death or suffering of someone - regardless - what is the answer?

As a simplistic example, to illustrate my point, one could lower health spending and balance the budget. To do this will inevitably result in the death of people who no longer get adequate treatment. Not to, however, you fail to balance the budget and the affects on the economy may result in greater poverty, crime and inevitably the death of others. Often military issues are cursed with similar Hobson’s choices - damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

So I don’t know if you can apply normal morality to your scenario.

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm finding it hard to think of a scenario where I wouldn't unequivocally condemn such killings.

Terrorist group barricade themselves in a city centre building with a number of civilian hostages and a nuke. Negotiations fail. Not enough time for an evacuation. Do you try raiding the building (to save the civilian hostages) and giving the terrorists a chance to let off the nuke killing thousands or do you bomb the building killing everyone, including the civilian hostages?

Boggle wrote:

Normally "they were left no choice" means that it was the easiest way to inflict damage. I.e. it was easier to blindly bomb rather than to shoot whereby they run the risk of getting shot back.

I must have missed that definition on that Discovery Channel documentary on military tactics. You’re sure you’re not just making a sweeping unfounded statement, are you?

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

This is more a philosophical than a political question.

Yes, but if you look at the notions of international recognition of sovereignty etc. I believe there is a degree of overlap.

For example: I'm not sure whether the current view of international law vs national sovereignty was come about taking this type of question into account, or by deliberately trying to avoid answering such questions, or striking a middle ground, but I personally find the abtractness of it interesting.

I also find that its an issue which is being somewhat brushed under the carpet in our current day and age, where the "protect our way of life" mentality seems to be taking an increasing hold around the globe.

Note that I'm not saying this mentality is wrong in any way....I'm more interested in whether or not people see a difference in them condoning acts that others may find reprehensible and others condoning acts that they find reprehensible, when both sets of acts were carried out in the name of "protecting a way of life" that someone believes in.

I guess ultimately what I'm driving at is that I beleive much of how we carry out international affairs is governed by the answer to this question in one form or another. In that sense, its philosophical, but with a definite political "background".
jc

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote:

Terrorist group barricade themselves in a city centre building with a number of civilian hostages and a nuke. Negotiations fail. Not enough time for an evacuation. Do you try raiding the building (to save the civilian hostages) and giving the terrorists a chance to let off the nuke killing thousands or do you bomb the building killing everyone, including the civilian hostages?

Interesting scenario, but not one I was considering in the context of jc's original question:

...a number of civilians were killed in the furtherment of the strategic aims of one of the factions in the current ongoing struggle...

Your hypothetical situation doesn't involve the decision to kill civilians for a specific strategic purpose, so much as a tactical response to an immediate threat.

I could just be dodging the question, of course.

Wheely

I cant say that I would ever justify the death of civilians for strategic purposes or for "the greater pursuit of protecting that which the faction believes in." Given that that suggests they're killing to protect a belief, implies that a choice was made, one to elevate their belief to a higher degree of importance than the lives of innocent people. Even if they're beliefs are noble, say, democracy...well u cant really bomb people in the name of democracy now can you? Most likely it'll be an extreme belief of some sort or another, its not often that a moderate will resort to explosives to get his point across....i think thath the situation as bonkey deswcribed is never justifiable, whatever the minor details