Posted by Luck on March 1, 2009, 6:10 am, in reply to "Re: Double Effect and War?"
66.27.99.183
Pro: States can use double effects to justify their military operations in sense that any civilian deaths were unintentional or a small side effect for the overall war effort. Example: Nuke Japan -> large civilian death toll -> however might end war and prevent an American land invasion of Japan
Con: (1) Can be obviously abused, allows states to target whatever they want and claim it as double effect. (2) Opens large debate on if the ends justifies the means. Example: Nuking Japan, yes ending the war is important and the argument for it is that it saves more lives in the end. But whose lives are we saving? Just the Americans? Who is to say saving American lives is more important than saving Japanese lives? (On an overall sense not just from the perspective of a side) (3) More hypothetical modern example: Would it be right to horribly, horribly abuse a terrorist suspect if it meant for sure, 100% it will prevent the attacks of Sept 11th?
I hope I'm right in my examples, not sure if any this can help you though unless your in a monday section
14
Message Thread:
« Back to thread