Life is Sacred
Is all killing, even in war, immoral?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The pacifist position against war or violence generally is often based upon the deontological argument that all of life (or just all human life) is sacred, and hence it is morally wrong to ever act in a way which would cause the deaths of others. Quite often the reasons for this position are religious in nature, but religious premises involving God or souls are not absolutely required.
This differs from the more common antiwar argument regarding the immorality of causing the deaths of innocent people in that it argues that even killing guilty people is morally wrong. Thus, even if it were possible for the military to target only military personnel and those responsible for waging of war of aggression, effectively preventing the deaths of any innocent civilians, it would still be immoral and unjust.
Because no moral distinction is made between combatants and noncombatants, one of the most serious objections to the "killing innocent civilians is wrong" argument does not apply here. However, another does: we are asked to adopt the principle that there is a genuine moral difference between acts of commission and acts of omission. To understand why, it must be kept in mind that this position argues that any war in which anyone dies is necessarily immoral.
We can imagine a situation in which a brutal dictator is repressing and killing his own people, but economic and political sanctions fail to result in any change. It seems, unfortunately, that only military action will be enough to achieve liberation - but of course that will result in at least the deaths of military personnel and probably the deaths of civilians.
If wars are immoral and unjust because they result in people dying, then this war of liberation is also immoral and our only moral course of action is not to act at all. But of course, by not acting we are allowing many people to continue to be killed and oppressed - isn't that at least as immoral?
The argument that "life is sacred, so all war is immoral" suggests that this act of omission isn't as immoral as the act of commission required by war. That is a deontological position because it privileges a moral rule (killing anyone is wrong because life is sacred) over the possible consequences; as such, it is something which might be argued by a deontological pacifist, but not a pragmatic pacifist.
Perhaps this position is indeed the most reasonable and most moral, but it isn't obviously true, and there are good reasons to think that such a war, even if it has some unjust consequences, is ultimately the most just and most moral course of action. It seems to be an error of this argument to assume that the killing of anyone always means that war is wrong - in fact, it is a common criticism of strict deontological ethics that they ignore the consequences of actions or inaction.
-->
