War and Massacre, by Thomas Nagel - 872 Words

In â€Å"War and Massacre† by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good. In mid-November of last†¦show more content†¦Nonetheless, such a position according to Nagel would be considered a prohibited act in war, even though the act was done for the overall good of the region. In his argument in his piece War and Massacre, he creates this dialectic between Utilitarianism and Kantianism (Absolutism). Nagel begins his theory with two premises. His first premise discusses the idea that war and conflict is a relation between persons and therefore the way people treat people in the context of war must be considered under a moral paradigm. His second premise follows two classes of absolutist’s restrictions; who can count as a legitimate target of attack and what counts as a legitimate manner of attack. Based on these premises, it is clear that Nagel would suggest that such an action by the IDF would under no circumstance be morally justifiable by these premises even when the stakes are high. This is simply because an absolutists view would hold th at â€Å"one may not kill another person under any circumstances, no matter what good would be achieved or evil thereby† (126, War and Massacre). Therefore Nagel would still deem a militant commanderShow MoreRelatedReview : War And Massacre By Thomas Nagel2297 Words   |  10 Pages Kinshuk Sen Philosophy 4 Robert C. Hughes Discussion 1G O. Taiwo Paper 2 Is Everything Truly Fair in War? Absolutism is a political theory that views all values and principles as unconditional, rather than as relative, dependent, or changeable entities. The school of thought is associated with the perception of interpersonal relationships, wherein one views oneself as a small being interacting with others in a larger system. It limits the effect of Utilitarianism, a form of belief that believesRead MoreThe Lai Massacre And The Vietnam War1186 Words   |  5 Pagesthe Lai Massacre violated the international humanitarian law of war. The Lai Massacre and the Vietnam War raises critical questions about how America conduct war and its military leadership in Vietnam. The massacre of innocent unarmed civilians illustrates the horrendous war crime committed by American soldiers. Lippman discusses how the United States tried to keep the events of My Lai Massacre from the public. The My Lai Massacre makes me wonder if this was only one of the many massacres in VietnamRead MoreKilling Innocent Ci vilian During War977 Words   |  4 PagesCivilian during War Wars in our history have told human beings of the atrocities and horror our predecessors have committed and faced. The moral question at hand of killing of innocent civilian during war have been long debated by the people whether it was right to end the lives of people who are not involved in the war in order to stop the greater numbers of casualties that would have come without it as well to punish the enemies for their evil. Though these casualties during war already been doneRead More Democracy and Political Obligation Essay4061 Words   |  17 Pageshave a legitimation function for actions that seem to be morally reprehensible, this concept must be linked to a concept of political responsibility and obligation. Such renowned moral philosophers as Michael Walzer and, though more hesitantly, Thomas Nagel and Bernard Williams, seem to accept that political necessity can cause the paradox that responsible politicians must get their hands dirty and commit moral crimes. (2) From a Kantian moral point of view, there can be no other necessity for free