CIVILIAN KILLINGS IN WAR

Is It Ever Morally Permissible To Intentionally Kill Innocent Civilians In War? If So, Under What Conditions?

Is it ever morally permissible to intentionally kill innocent civilians in war? If so, under what conditions?

Introduction

Killing innocent civilians intentionally in war has been a heated debate for many decades. There are many schools of thought who hold different views with regard to killing of innocent civilians in war. Firstly, those who believe that killing innocents in a war is morally permissible. Secondly, those who think that killing innocents in war is totally wrong. Thirdly, who grant the permission of intentionally killing innocent civilians with just cause and conditions. For example, drone attacks by the US against the evil terrorists in North Waziristan, Pakistan have also done harm to many innocent civilians living there. Hence, in accordance to third view, it is morally permissible to kill innocent civilians with a greater cause (Singer, 2011, pp. 120-133). Furthermore, many sociologists are of the view that it is morally correct to kill those high value targets because otherwise the targets would just use the civilians as a shield to protect themselves, so in order to eliminate them there will be civilian casualties that cannot be ignored.

Discussion

Absolute Moral Prohibition

Moral absolutism is one of the oldest ethical views that prohibit immoral actions. As reported by Absolute Moral theory, certain actions are bad by nature and killing innocent civilians is morally wrong. According to absolutism, those actions, which are bad, should never be carried out in any case; necessarily targeting or harming civilians in war is absolutely wrong and lacks morality. For instance, killing civilian to gain some benefit is totally wrong. This view does not care, what the outcome would be, whatever action is that is morally wrong is wrong, whether it has good intention or not for a party. For example, drone attacks in Yemen by US armed forces which kill civilians is morally not permissible, even though these drone attacks kill high profile terrorist targets. Unlike utilitarianism, this school of thought does not weigh the good and bad. This view totally differs from utilitarianism. Utilitarianism believes in weighing measuring good against bad; if the result outweighs the bad then it is morally correct to follow specific action regardless whether the action is morally wrong or not. The Catholic Church which believes in absolute moral theory argues that every action directed towards indiscriminate annihilation of individuals, or their cities is irrevocably a crime against the entire humanity and a crime against God which deserves unquestionable and strong condemnation (Levada, 1994).

Furthermore, in 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was also a follower of absolute moral theory said that the ruthless killing of civilians without any concern for humanity or the consequences has sickened the hearts of every individual regardless of race, gender, colour, cast, and creed (Dallek, 1995, pp. 229-300). In short any civilized men or women would never approve of such brutal and blatant display of power through killing innocent civilians ...