May I Kill?

Just War, Non-Violence, and Civilian Self-Defense

Mann

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781532652059
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Ethics & Religion

Today, we live in a world where we are less exposed to violence than at any other time in history. However, we also know that violence can come knocking on our door at any moment. Preparing for this possibility means more than physical safety; it means being clear with ourselves about the ethics of violence. Can violence be justified? When should we fight? How should we fight? And in situations when things have gone badly, may we kill? These questions are not only for politicians, soldiers, and police officers, but are also important considerations for civilians whose lives do not normally intersect with violence. Whether advocating for government policies, marching in the streets, or defending ourselves and loved ones, a coherent moral framework is essential to good decision-making. May I Kill? examines the efficacy of different approaches to non-violence and Just War Theory. By scrutinizing these ethical theories, the reader is encouraged to critically examine occasions for the use of force from a moral perspective, whether nations at war or violent encounters in our own neighborhoods. We may then determine how best to develop ourselves--body, mind, and spirit--to respond effectively and make the world a safer place.

Part One

Moral Reasoning

Critical intelligence is a prerequisite of justice.

—Reinhold Niebuhr

In this examination of ethics, we begin with the assumption that the people involved have a genuine desire to be morally upright. Ethics does not ask whether you will do the right thing—that is a question for psychologists, I suppose. Ethics asks what the right thing to do is. Sometimes the answer to ethical questions is easy, but many times it is not: I know I should help my uncle clean his gutters when I visit him next month, but should I share a beer with him when I know he has a drinking problem?

This book assumes that the reader is interested in doing the right thing when it comes to matters of violence. The challenge is determining what behaviors are morally virtuous and which are not. There is not a single approach to this problem, but rather a variety of theories that people use to figure out how they should act. Even though most people cannot name and define a specific ethical theory, we all use various models on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, it is helpful to establish categories of ethics. This allows us to recognize the moral reasoning we currently practice, to do it better, and to understand how others reach their own moral conclusions.

The first chapter introduces three dominant theories of ethics: deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. We will examine how these methods attempt to determine what is morally right. We will also consider their shortcomings. With a basic understanding of these theories, we are in a much better position to engage the following question: “When, if ever, is violence justified?”

Determining the right course of action is not as easy as plugging in the particulars of a situation and waiting for the ethical theory to tell you the answer. Consider the question of the death penalty (which is not within the purview of this book). It is often argued that capital punishment is immoral because one of the Ten Commandments is “Do not kill.” Others argue that this practice should be banned because it does not actually deter crime, pointing to the correlation between high crime rates and states that practice execution. There are also those who simply stick a bumper sticker on their car that reads “Death Penalty: What Would Jesus Do?”; this method suggests we should follow the nonviolent model of the Messiah.

These three arguments represent the three ethical theories mentioned above. However, the arguments are all flawed: the commandment opposes murder (i.e., the killing of an innocent), not executing a criminal; high crime rates could indicate that the death penalty is not a deterrent, or that states with high crime rates are more likely to adopt the death penalty (correlation does not equal causation); following the virtuous example of Jesus is often a good idea, but there is a danger in pulling him from history and declaring what position he would take on a contemporary moral issue.

This is not to say that the death penalty is a good thing. After all, there are plenty of faulty arguments in support of it. The point is that there are moral arguments out there, grounded in different ethical theories, which sound good but do not hold up under scrutiny. This book intends to supply the tools to aid in the analysis of moral arguments about violence. In order to make coherent arguments, determine what is morally right, and recognize the value (or lack thereof) in others’ opinions, it is crucial to understand ethical theory. So, let us begin.

Chapter 1

Ethical Theories

A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.

—Albert Camus

Deontology

Deontology, or deontological ethics, is ethics based on following certain absolute and universal moral rules. For this reason, it is often described as “rule-based” ethics. If you follow universal rules that tell you which behaviors are morally right and which are morally wrong, then you are likely engaged in deontological ethics. One subcategory of deontology, found more commonly in the West, are commands from God. This is a type of deontology known as Divine Command Ethics.10 The Ten Commandments were given by Yahweh to Moses on Mount Sinai; they are commands from God and are therefore universally valid for Jews and Christians and should always be followed. Christians believe that Jesus is divine—the incarnate second person of the Trinity. When he tells his followers to visit the imprisoned, turn the other cheek, or follow the Golden Rule,11 they are being given an ironclad rule that should be relied upon and followed in all ethical dilemmas. The Koran was transmitted from Allah to the Muslim people and likewise contains divine commands for how to live your life. Following these rules is a moral imperative for Muslims.

In a nutshell, divine command ethics teaches that “God commanded it, so do it.” In many respects, these ethics are easy to understand and follow, although there are concerns as well. Foremost is the question that people must ask: “How do I know this command is really from God?” We will not be trying to answer that question here, but the reader should be aware that such a challenge must always be faced by people following divine command ethics.

Non-Western religions have far fewer divine command ethics, as their religious traditions generally do not emphasize scriptures that are understood to contain God’s moral rules for human beings. There are possible exceptions, like The Law of Manu in Hinduism, which allegedly contains the words of the god Brahma, but this approach to ethics is far less common in the East.

Most of the time, however, ethicists are not thinking about divine commands when they talk about deontology. (In fact, many philosophers do not even acknowledge divine command ethics when discussing deontological ethics.) For example, Thomas Jefferson insisted that everyone has certain rights—among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—in the Declaration of Independence. These human rights are unalienable and endowed by our Creator; we know about them because they are self-evident, not because the Bible tells us so.12 Respect for these rights is then a moral imperative, and thus an example of deontological ethics.

Plenty of the world’s greatest thinkers taught something called the Silver Rule,13 or the Law of Reciprocity. Its most familiar formulation is, “Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you.” It has been expressed different ways at different times. In The Analects, Confucius (551–479 BCE) instructed his students “Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.”14 Roughly a century before him, in Ancient Greece, Thales (c. 624–c. 526 BCE) taught, “Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” Still today, this is one of the most popular and persuasive deontological ethical principles throughout the world.

As already stated, deontology does not have to be religious at all. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) taught the categorical imperative, which is the classic example of deontological ethics. Its first formulation reads, “Act in such a way that the maxim of your actions could be willed as universal law.” That is, when you are choosing what to do in a moral dilemma, it should be possible to will the principle that governs your actions be followed by everyone. For example, is it okay if you take a single grape from the grocery store? The maxim of your actions would be stealing, and it is impossible to will a world in which people could steal whenever they want to. So, do not take the grape. In other words, never make an exception for yourself when it comes to moral quandaries.

Kant’s categorical imperative is not treated at length here, but this is not because of any lack in its importance. It is the quintessential example of deontology. However, the following chapters will draw more upon religious deontology than Kant. This may be regarded by some as a shortcoming in my arguments, but the history of pacifism, just war theory, and popular ethics are grounded more in theology than Kant.

There are a few problems with the various schools of deontology. One is the difficulty of establishing that any absolute moral principle is, in fact, true. Was the divine command really communicated by God or simply created by some well-meaning individual? Do human beings really have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (let alone rights to work, leisure, and healthcare insurance), or are these just privileges that we decide to give one another to make our society a nicer place to live?

Second is the fact that deontology is very rigid, and we would really like to have more flexible rules to live by. Am I really not allowed to lie? Ever? Imagine that you were one of the noble individuals who hid Anne Frank and her family during the Nazi occupation of Holland. If your actions were discovered, not only would the Frank and van Pels families be shipped off for execution, but so would you and your family. If it happened one day that an eight-year-old boy stopped you on the street and asked if you were hiding someone in your attic, as he had seen shadows and heard noises while playing in the area, would you be morally bound to answer him truthfully?

The third problem is that it is not always so easy to understand what the moral imperative means. Jesus said “turn the other cheek,” but does that mean we always do this? Are we supposed to be pacifists? The Koran prescribes the death penalty for murder “and spreading corruption [fasad] in the land.” That could mean piracy or treason, but others have understood it to include extortion or drug dealing. It is not an easy task to determine how corrupt an action must be before it is fasad and therefore merits execution. Simply having a fixed rule does not mean everyone will understand its application in the same way.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that is often placed under the umbrella of consequentialism. For a utilitarian trying to figure out the right thing to do in a moral dilemma, it is the consequences of one’s actions that matter, rather than obeying a fixed rule. This is often described as trying to create “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Utilitarians also talk about creating “maximum happiness,” but this does not simply mean making people smile and filling them with warm fuzzies. Happiness must be understood broadly in terms of human thriving or flourishing, as in the Greek...