Final Paper Organizing....
The Risk Versus The Need
May 8, 2018
51344928
Power and Responsibility: Doing Philosophy with Superheroes
Professor Christopher Robichaud
War is often times defined as a state of conflict, often armed, between states, countries, societies, etc. Because its characterized by extreme aggression, destruction, and mortality, it is often chosen as a last result by many countries, while other countries anticipate war just as one would anticipate going to a football game. While war is usually against two sides who go in prepared for battle, there are many innocent civilians on both sides that are often thrust into war as unwilling participants and even worse, many civilians unfortunately become innocent casualties of war.
In the movie The Avengers, we watched this happen first hand as many civilians unfortunately become innocent casualties of a war they never asked for. Because the Avengers were forced to engage the evil mercenaries in a densely-populated area that was home to many Wakandans, the Avengers, superheroes whose normal primary objective is to protect innocent civilians, now found themselves to be the cause of death of many innocent civilians due to their war with the mercenaries. A peril of war that often leaves many heartbroken.
The doctrine of double effect is often implemented to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the deaths of innocent people not directly involved in the conflict or extreme damage to cities, towns etc. According to the principle of double effect, it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect of bringing about a good result in war even though it would not normally be permissible to cause such a harm or in other words a harm that one would otherwise be obliged to avoid. I believe a great example of the principle of double effect would be "The Avengers" causing the deaths of civilians by engaging those mercenaries in a densely-populated area. The Avengers took a risk as a side effect of pursuing a good end goal of winning the battle against the mercenaries. This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle of double effect requires four conditions be met for the action in question to be considered morally permissible. The action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; Secondly, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be "proportionate to" the bad result. Many people who support this principle argue that, in situations of "double effect" where all these conditions are met, the action is deemed morally permissible despite the bad result. This is a practice widely adopted by many military forces around the world. The double effect principle allows less accountability for the harming of bystanders.
Although many would argue the fact remains that innocent civilians were put into harm’s way and died as a result of the Avengers taking this risk, however, we must take a step back to look at the bigger picture of what war entails. Doing this may help many see the more optimistic glass-half-full viewpoint of not only this particular example but also what war brings about. Over the course of decades we have come to see that mercenaries typically have no soft spot for civilian casualties nor would they ever deter from their primary mission of winning for their cause. It would only stand to reason that these mercenaries would also go after civilians if that meant distracting the other side (The Avengers). In contemporary armed conflicts, civilians often make up an overwhelming majority of casualties of war and many times have been deliberately targeted by the other side and that should also be something to consider when deciding the level of importance of protecting civilians in cases of war. In other words, it could have been worse. The mercenaries could have cause even more destruction to Wakanda and its citizens had the battle not been forged then and there. Acknowledging situations that could happen is a war fighting strategy that goes hand in hand with wars. War is like playing chess you have to plan your moved based on what counter moves your opponent may implement and in many cases hard decisions must be made in order to win wars. Decisions are made that may not always line up with one’s moral compass however these decisions are what you rely on to keep you and your allies alive.
War is a beast that can never be mapped out in its entirety and one has no way of knowing what the end results may be, In many cases there are the unforeseen circumstances due to the effects of war and we must look at war and any unforeseen circumstances through a different set of moral lenses. Morals that dictate what is right and wrong or what is human or inhumane by the same set of morals that are used on a daily basis does not have a place in the art of war. Morally permissible is described as something that may be permitted by one's morals. Essentially something is "morally permissible" if it can be done without violating one's code of morals/ethics. In the act of war we must take a less skewed viewpoint on what is morally permissible when it comes to war and the repercussions of the risks surrounding that war. Morally permissible risks that are taken in battle must be looked at differently than the way we look at everyday experiences. In the case of the Avengers taking on the mercenaries, I would say that it was absolutely morally permissible for the Avengers to take this risk even when the outcome could be the death of innocent lives as casualties of the war. If accountability was what drove either side then decisions of where or when to engage their enemy would be less cut and dry. When we focus on morals than on the war, then and only then would the doctrine of double effect no longer matter because the focus would now be one of safety of the innocent villagers as opposed to just neutralizing the threat and winning the war which should be the only focus when at war.
Allan, (2015), defines the double effect principle as phrase used about an explanation given as an excuse for an action that is bound to cause significant harm, for instance, the ending of human life, as a side effect that transpires in pursuit of a greater good. In other words, the doctrine of double effect suffices in the explanation of the permissibility of activity with known and foreseeable harmful outcome. While this school of thought might sound inhumane in the face of the International Humanitarian Law, at least at face value, an interrogation of the circumstances and contexts within which such can happen reveals a valid side. Therefore, the plausibility of the double effect mentality is inspired by the fact that sometimes, some actions have to be done at the expense of others. In so doing, the element of permissibility is grounded on the fact that such activity, despite having the potential to bring about harm, is premised on the pursuit of a better result. In that light, philosophers have argued that the prize for which collateral damage is allowed has to be higher than the harm that results as a side effect (Potter, 2015). An example is told of the fact that a driver, in the face of the eminent accident with two probable outcomes (killing one or many), chooses to run over a cyclist on a bridge. Before branding the act as wrong in the face of humanity, it should be understood that the other possibility, for which the motorist chose to forgo, was plunging into the river with several passengers. While the killing of the rider is, in plain sight, not permissible, in this context, the action receives the permissibility green light with the intention of taking one life to save many.
According to Michael Walzer, the blowing up of German metropolis by other forces allied to the course was an act of alleviating greater disaster (Allan, 2015). It then was permissible because it was done to arrest a ‘supreme emergency.' Walzer's is the argument that the Nazis had to be ‘controlled' through the means of military power. Otherwise, they would have done the continent of Europe more harm than good. In his submission on this matter, the philosopher subscribes to the school of thought that the powers that be had moral permissibility to bomb the cities of Germany in a quest to dehorn the threat that was the Nazi kingdom. Michael Walzer opines that the concept of ‘dirty hands' is a desperate measure permissible to political factions that find themselves between a hard place and a rock. Therefore, given the situation of the anti-Nazi forces, the resolve to kill and maim a significant population of Nazis residing in the urban areas, civilians and combatants alike, seemed justifiable (Allan, 2015). The philosopher successfully advances the notion that the Nazi situation was so serious a situation that it warranted a terrorist ‘intervention' on the German populations.
It is in the supreme emergency discussion that a question of whether or not a ‘supreme emergency' would be justifiable is posed. Philosopher Walzer offers that be that as it may, then some sub-state terrorist activity is deemed fit as a remedy to the foreseen happenings (Allan, 2015). Further, Michael Walzer supports his theory through the proposal that the act of bombing by allied forces is justifiable with regards to the fact that the action was inspired by intentions to prevent genocidal activity plans of the Nazis (Allan, 2015). In his defense of the supreme emergency notion, there was the perception that the ambitions of the Nazi forces would prevail upon the Germans to prescribe mass killing of the British community. In support of his theory, Michael Walzer deconstructs the idea that modern terrorism masterminded and executed by administrations have not been inspired by a pursuit of political mileage but rather the intentions of voiding disaster. Given the idea that the allied forces seemed to share a common concern of protecting the Britons' way of life by destabilizing and killing a few of their enemies, the exemption of dirty hands appears to be plausible.
In the event, the mercenaries have hatched a plan to attack a Wakandan city through the deployment of a biological weapon, and that there is a probability that there could be casualties in millions, it makes it incumbent upon the Avengers to engage the combatants. It must be understood that the engagement and challenge of the mercenaries have to be by the use of lethal force. The intention of the mercenaries toward the city is vile, to say the least. Additionally, according to International Humanitarian Law, a military faction can only attack another one of the same statuses. Therefore, it is wrong that the terrorists have set their target on the innocent civilians and Wakanda land. On these grounds, it becomes justifiable to seek to protect the lives of the potential victims (Allan, 2015). On these grounds, the Avengers have the reason and motivation to attack the mercenaries. Be that as it may, the actions of the Avengers will be plausible. That will be based because the Avengers mean well through their intentions to protect the lives of millions of people. That way, despite the fact that taking away of people's lives is wrong, it is plausible and justifiable in the context of defense, either for self or of others. In this case, therefore, the killing of a few terrorists, even if it means sacrificing a few innocent civilians, maybe in their hundreds, is a worthy undertaking for the primary objective of saving many more lives that could fall victim to biological weaponry.
On the flip side of the coin, there is bound to be an opposition to the step taken by the Avengers to remedy the impending situation. In the eyes of dissenting views, human life is sacred regardless of circumstances. That, therefore, advances an argument that the attacking of the biological weapon terrorists with an intention to kill them is wrong in itself. The rationale for that school of thought is the fact that no life better than the other (Potter, 2015). That, again, brings forth a notion that the potential casualties of collateral damage in the attack on the terrorists have an equal right to life as do the millions. Therefore, no one has the moral authority to decide whose life is worth taking and which one is fit for killing. Also, the International Humanitarian Law advocates for the respect of life regardless of the offense. In such a case, the argument that holds and therefore will pose the strongest objection is the right to life. All said and done; I don't think the objection is successful. That is because the universal human instinct is and will always be to serve the greater good, a pursuit that is known to have collateral damage in the realms of the combat force.
References
Allan, L. (2015). The Principle of Double Effect. URL=< http://www .rationalrealm. com/philosophy/ethics/principle-double-effect. html.
Potter, J. (2015). The Principle of Double Effect in End-of-Life Care. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 15(3), 515-529.