Q&A: Individual Rights and Collateral Damage in War

[nanite1018]

I've never felt comfortable with this. The logic that 1) The foreign government is morally responsible for any and all deaths in the war of retaliation & 2) That the foremost obligation of the retaliating nation is the safety of its soldiers requires one to fight all wars with ICBMs, since then no Americans die and none of the other deaths are our fault. There has to be some calculus of how many foreign civilians are equal to an American soldier in to avoid this, but no Objectivist ever says it.

[davebowland]

@nanite1018 - your discomfort stems from the fact that you are attempting to create dogma out of a concrete application of a principle. You must go to the principle to understand the answer to your question. The obligation of the US Govt is to protect it's citizen's individual rights. Obliterating every hostile regime with nuclear weapons that create serious long-term problems in that country isn't necessarily the correct option. And philosophy does not equal military strategy.

[nanite1018]

@davebowland The ideal is to defeat the opposing country at no loss of American lives, and the number of civilian deaths on the other side is only relevant insofar as mass civilian deaths may cause further conflicts in the future. So, if other states would not attack the US in response to the US using WMDs against aggressing nations, then the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons would be the logical strategy, as it is far cheaper and safer (for Americans) than conventional war.

[fab006]

@nanite1018 See, now this is where I get uncomfortable. I can accept that civilian deaths are necessary to the defense of the US, because they are, at base, not victims of the US but victims of their own governments (and of themselves insofar as they support those governments). But it strikes me as odd to say that civilian deaths are entirely irrelevant morally. If you achieve the same end result, why is it moral to kill more civilians than you have to? cont'd

[fab006]

@fab006 cont'd: (I understand that "have to" is a vague term, but I trust you understand.)

[nanite1018]

@davebowland Note that I am including here pragmatic concerns about the possible response of other states. My point is this: Is the possibility of reprisal from US action the only thing preventing the US from turning any country that attacks us into glass? That seems to be the conclusion one must draw from Biddle's argument, as we aren't responsible for those deaths, and it would be the cheapest way to fight a war both in terms of American casualties and resource/money cost.

[FilipinoObjectivist]

Excellent answer. The moral blame for all the death and destruction in WW2 Japan lies with the Japanese Imperialists. They were the ones who initiated the war with the United States and tried to enslave all of East Asia.

[SwordOfApollo]

Mr. Biddle is right. The moral responsibility for the deaths of innocents is on the aggressor nation, because it is impossible to wage a proper war of self-defense with anything approaching zero risk of innocent deaths. The nation defending itself has a moral obligation to be concerned first and foremost with the safety of its soldiers. The transfer of moral responsibility is much the same as if someone hands you a club, points a gun at your head, and tells you to beat another person to death.

[SwordOfApollo]

@SwordOfApollo Who is guilty of murder in the above scenario? It is only the person who is holding the gun.