Anscombe: War and Murder
Elizabeth Anscombe: War and Murder
Main Points:
It is wrong for the government to kill innocents as a means to killing non-innocents. But it is the job of the government/sovereign to exercise power when the stability of the community depends on it
“It is so clear that the world is less of a jungle because of rulers and laws, and that the exercies of coercive power is essential to these institutions as they are now...”(643)
“[S[ociety without coercive power is generally impossible”(644) Just so long as it is only used on non-innocents.
How is a non-innocent described: “What is required, for the people attacked to be non-innocnet in the relevant sense, is that they should themselves be engaged in an objectively unjust proceeding which the attacker has the right to make his concern; or-the commonest case- should be unjustly attacking him. Then he can attack them…”(644-645)
Some violence can only be stopped by killing. Her basis for this argument is that it is true because history shows that often evil will not be stopped by anything other than killing
Anscombe’s Assumptions:
(1) that the world is not just a jungle but a place where the reasoning man can be assured that such noble concepts as justice, evil, and good have a place.
(2) that "evil" is something which should be stopped or prevented.
(3) that "neutral" is something that is not evil yet not the opposite of evil.
(4) that "non-innocents" are those who commit evil.
(5) that the Bible is the truth and the guiding light in determining ‘what is moral’.
Her attack on Double effect and the idea that intention is all that matters:
Review of double effect: also known as the rational for Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Review of Kant’s categorical imperitive and the example of your friend hiding in the back room and someone who wants to kill him asking you where he is. Do you uphold the maxim “ I ought not ever lie” or do I lie and act maliciously in order to prevent a more malicaious act from occurring?
Review of Kant’s good will and the primacy of intention
Anscombe’s attack on intention as moral tool:
“Now if intention is all that is important…a marvelous way offered itself of making any action lawful. You only had to “direct yoru intention” in a suitable way. In practice, this means making a little speech to yourself: “What I mean to be doing is this…”…This same doctrine is used to prevent any doubts about the obliteration bombing of a city.”(647)
It comes about by attempting to maintain the new testament and pacifistic ideal of never doing committing any wrong towards someone. If you are intending a good outcome you can slip any action under the moral rug.
She concludes: the Principle of Double Effect should not allow evil to be committed as a means to achieving good
But Double Effect is not a completely fallacious argument, as long as it is not abused. Killing in self-defense is not an evil it is neutral. Her basis is that as killing in self-defense is not the means to the good but rather concomitant with the good, thus it passes the test of the Principle of Double Effect.
Case Study 1
Main Points:
It is wrong for the government to kill innocents as a means to killing non-innocents. But it is the job of the government/sovereign to exercise power when the stability of the community depends on it
“It is so clear that the world is less of a jungle because of rulers and laws, and that the exercies of coercive power is essential to these institutions as they are now...”(643)
“[S[ociety without coercive power is generally impossible”(644) Just so long as it is only used on non-innocents.
How is a non-innocent described: “What is required, for the people attacked to be non-innocnet in the relevant sense, is that they should themselves be engaged in an objectively unjust proceeding which the attacker has the right to make his concern; or-the commonest case- should be unjustly attacking him. Then he can attack them…”(644-645)
Some violence can only be stopped by killing. Her basis for this argument is that it is true because history shows that often evil will not be stopped by anything other than killing
Anscombe’s Assumptions:
(1) that the world is not just a jungle but a place where the reasoning man can be assured that such noble concepts as justice, evil, and good have a place.
(2) that "evil" is something which should be stopped or prevented.
(3) that "neutral" is something that is not evil yet not the opposite of evil.
(4) that "non-innocents" are those who commit evil.
(5) that the Bible is the truth and the guiding light in determining ‘what is moral’.
Her attack on Double effect and the idea that intention is all that matters:
Review of double effect: also known as the rational for Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Review of Kant’s categorical imperitive and the example of your friend hiding in the back room and someone who wants to kill him asking you where he is. Do you uphold the maxim “ I ought not ever lie” or do I lie and act maliciously in order to prevent a more malicaious act from occurring?
Review of Kant’s good will and the primacy of intention
Anscombe’s attack on intention as moral tool:
“Now if intention is all that is important…a marvelous way offered itself of making any action lawful. You only had to “direct yoru intention” in a suitable way. In practice, this means making a little speech to yourself: “What I mean to be doing is this…”…This same doctrine is used to prevent any doubts about the obliteration bombing of a city.”(647)
It comes about by attempting to maintain the new testament and pacifistic ideal of never doing committing any wrong towards someone. If you are intending a good outcome you can slip any action under the moral rug.
She concludes: the Principle of Double Effect should not allow evil to be committed as a means to achieving good
But Double Effect is not a completely fallacious argument, as long as it is not abused. Killing in self-defense is not an evil it is neutral. Her basis is that as killing in self-defense is not the means to the good but rather concomitant with the good, thus it passes the test of the Principle of Double Effect.
Case Study 1
posted by Charles Carlson at
10:17 AM
