Conclusion: One of the
restrictions on total war appears in the distinction between combatants and
non-combatants.
1. Absolutism
is not entirely separate from utilitarianism- rather, it limits utilitarianism,
stating that there are certain actions we must never commit, no matter how
beneficial the consequences may be. (56)
a. It can be said that
absolutism is concerned with our actions (52), whereas
b. Utilitarianism is concerned
with the results of these actions (52)
2.
There is a certain misunderstanding of Absolutism- this is that
we may never commit an act that we know may have negative consequences upon
other people, such as murder
a. However, we see sometimes,
there are cases in which avoiding committing murder, or harming another person,
is impossible (57)
b. In these cases, it is
important to note absolutism does not say we must “prevent” murder no matter
what, but that we should “avoid” it as much as we can (60)
3. Following
this logic, it is possible in some cases that we may have to hurt or even kill
someone
4. Nagel
makes an important distinction between who is an appropriate target of harmful
actions, and who is not. In his terms, he uses the words “combatants” and “noncombatants”
(68)
a. Combatants are appropriate
targets (69)
b. Noncombatants must never be
intentionally harmed, not even in order to harm a combatant indirectly (63)
5.
Whenever we attack someone, there must be
something about that particular person himself that justifies our attack against
him (63)
a. Therefore, if there is not
something directly about the particular person you are attacking, your actions
are not morally permissible (63)
6. A combatant is defined as
someone who is “currently harmful” (69)
a. You must not take his
potential to be harmful into account. The only aspect that matters is how
harmful he is in the present moment (70)
b. In this logic, it is not
permissible to kill a soldier who is already wounded, and who cannot carry out
any other acts of violence against you- even if he has the potential to
recover, and continue his violent acts at a later date (70)
7. A noncombatant is anyone
who is “innocent,” or not immediately dangerous (69)
a. Nagel defines “innocence”
not as someone who is morally incorrupt, but rather as someone who is not
committing immediate harm (69)
b. This means that we are not
allowed to harm those who are not posing a direct threat to us (69)
8. This line may be less
distinguishable when dealing with certain types of people, such as the medical
personnel who are assisting your enemy during a war. According to Nagel’s
terms, we are not allowed to harm these people, regardless of the fact they are
aiding the enemy. (69)
a. This is because they are
providing for the enemies needs as a “human being”, rather than providing for
the enemy as a “threat” (69)
b. The right to health and
physical comfort is a right all human beings share, and thus providing someone
with this right is not a reason for violence (69)
9. The amount of harm we
inflict on a combatant must be relative to the threat he represents at that
time (63)
a. We must not inflict more
damage than is necessary to stop the harmful action the combatant is attempting
to commit (70)
b. For example, it is wrong to
purposely shoot and kill someone if all we had to do to stop the threat was to
shoot an extremity (70)
I found the argument outline very well organized and helpful for breaking down Nagel’s main points. I found part four very helpful because I was having some difficulty understanding the point but after reading points a and b and then returning to the pages of the text and rereading it I was able to understand the point Nagel was trying to make. I am not sure I completely understand the need for point five. Why would anyone attack someone else without reason? It does not seem likely and I think it turns the focus away from the other arguments of when it would be okay to attack someone, not whether or not someone has a reason to attack.
ReplyDeleteI liked your post, it clearly laid out the argument and your points were very direct and concise. One suggestion I would have is including the concept of "fighting dirty" vs "fighting clean" and how these terms relate to a utilitarian attitude and absolutist mentality. Also, I think you could have included what kind of a restriction on total war you are arguing for, namely a moral one. There are generally accepted restrictions on war, but countries still revert to attacking civilian populations. Besides that, you were very detailed, especially on premise 2 when you specified how a common misconception of absolutism can be countered. On a personal note, I totally agree with the notion of a restriction to fighting solely between militaries, fighting dirty is incredibly immoral and should be regulated.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was a well laid out, detailed outline. I understand the use of point five, I think that it expands upon the concept of combatants and noncombatants, and could maybe be placed after the premises defining what those two things are. People do attack others for no reason, such as last week a man in Florida shot teenagers in a car who were playing music at a volume he deemed too loud and all the time when military's hurt civilians. This argument seems so logical, it is interesting that it is still not implemented during times of war. It's sad that morals go out the window when countries get greedy and then innocent people get hurt.
ReplyDeleteGreat outline! I think you did a great job of constructing an outline of Nagel's points in a clear, concise way. I particularly appreciated premises 6 and 7, your explanation of what Nagel defines as combatants and non-combatants. I'm wondering if there are any implicit premises that could be added that would flesh out some of these points even further. I also appreciate premise 8, your explanation of Nagel's way of distinguishing between a combatant and a noncombatant, because it seems as though this line could be unclear in a lot of situations. Great job!
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of things that I personally noticed regarding generally absolutism and war. The first thing is determining whether or not something can ever be justified, such as war. From the utilitarian perspective, war can definitely be justified, so why is it important for Nagel to make the distinction. I feel that the first two points of this outline, though reflected in the text, as being almost irrelevant in that they are both intrinsically part of the theory. The second problem I have is the activity of non-combatants. Obviously, there is a whole proportionality argument that you have to consider, but is it truly never justified to kill a combatant if happiness ends up being greater? What about the risks involved in lack of intelligence? Is it acceptable to take these risks without knowing exactly if a non-combatant will die?
ReplyDeleteThis is an awesome outline. My only question is with your sixth premise. Particularly, there are times when, I feel, it is extremely hard to distinguish between a combatant and a noncombatant. With your wounded soldier example, aren't there times when a soldier is wounded but still harmful? There is always a chance that the wounded soldier could still inflict harm. However, if it is unknown whether or not the soldier is able to still inflict harm, is it wrong to kill the soldier? He could potentially inflict harm, but he could also be a noncombatant. I feel as though absolutism leaves this issue open and unclear so it is hard to follow this philosophy.
ReplyDeleteReally good argument! It just annoys me how absolutism is trying to limit utilitarianism. In a way, I feel like it is limiting free will and human actions, but I don't want to get into that now. For premise 7, we're not humans are not allowed to hurt someone if they pose a threat, but what if they have the potential to pose a threat? What I mean is, how does someone know that someone is innocent? Sure they might not be committing immediate harm, but at the same time they have the potential to commit immediate harm at any time. Especially if they know how to or know specific information about something. It's just a tricky concept I can't understand. Every other point is really good though. Nice job!
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job of making an in depth outline of the material while keeping it concise. Though I would beckon an objection to your second point, which seemed to provide a slippery slope to absolutionism when that would be a complete contradiction of what absolutionism is. Overall, each point you made was properly backed up with the according information and sub-premises. The flow from premise to premise was good, but I was left wondering how your final premise at all related to your conclusion. You should have left the final premise out, and the second-to-last premise would have allowed a proper progression towards your conclusion.
ReplyDelete