Human Shields and Choice

[Chaerophon]

I know, that's why it was justified. But that fact doesn't make the murder of 100,000 "right".

A quote from one of my earlier posts. I believe that you are the one who is mistaking me.

I think what's happening here is quite simple - you are deeming that the right or wrongness of actions is dependant upon the social atmosphere and the nature of conflict. I do not. This sort of relativist memory implicitly denies the fact that human life is anything of value. Now, I am not some sort of flighty dreamer unaware of the realities of war and human strife. However, the fact that I can understand the concepts of "realism" and "political necessity" does not take away from the fact that the killing of over 100,000 civilians (I will make an important distinction in a moment) is a morally reprehensible act. "But it was necessary to prevent further loss of life", you may argue. Fine, arguable, but even if you accept this fact, fine. It doesn't lend moral justification to the act, only that of utility.

Soldiers engaged in war are involved in a much different situation from those of the citizens of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. While the soldiers of war are positioning themselves so as to kill or facilitate the killing of their opposition; the civilians of a city are not. Perhaps some civilian deaths are necessary so as to destroy strategical locations. Fair enough. Their deaths may, perhaps, be paired with those of the soldiers. They put themselves in harm's way, directly aiding the war effort, directly facilitating the deaths of the opposition's soldiers. Nonetheless, the deaths of hundred's of thousands of those who have no ability to defend themselves and those who have no direct ability to kill or injure the opposition or facilitate the killing or injuring of the opposition cannot merely be passed off as "casualties of war". There is a moral implication in their deaths that exists outside of utility. Many of them may not have even supported the war. Many of them, such as women and children, may not have possessed the political power to do anything about the war. All of them should have been free to live, regardless of their beliefs, or their facilitation of a regime that opposed that of the Allied/Axis powers. Their deaths may very well have been, according to your analysis, necessary, but that does not make their deaths 'just' or right.

The deaths of these civilians, let's face it, was for the sole purpose of blackmail. We'll stop killing your families if you stop opposing us. It happened on both sides, but I'm sorry, that doesn't make it morally right. Domestic terrorists bombed the government buildings in Oklahoma. They had an agenda that they wanted to be met, they had a message. It was still murder. These cases can be dressed up in many ways and with many facts. You can tell me that this is the nature of war, and I will understand that fact, but that will not change the fact that millions of civilians died unjustly in the war. For them and their families, their deaths, away from the front, away from the conflict, will never resonate any less than would any other cold-blooded murder.

In my opinion, you are making the mistake of blending morality with utility. Many immoral acts were necessary to win the war. They were still wrong in the moral sense, whether or not they were for the "greater" good. (Which in the case of Dresden, is very debatable).