Military necessity and collateral damage
In connection with events of all kinds, it is interesting to reflect on what constitutes "military necessity" and how "collateral damage" differs from "war crime". As explained in the April video, the ethics of war is divided into two main parts: the rules for starting a war (jus ad bellum) and the rules for conducting a war (jus in bello). The latter ideally assumes that only combatants should die in a war. However, in reality, there has never been such a war in the world where civilians did not die on one scale or another. There is only one way to completely avoid the death of civilians - not to fight. But due to the fact that it is impossible, they came up with the eerie term "collateral losses" in order to separate the "good", acceptable deaths from the "bad" and criminal ones.
Helen Frowe in her book The Ethics of War and Peace writes that to justify "collateral losses" they often use the "doctrine of double effect" that has been known since the Middle Ages. It implies that there is a difference between the harm we want to do and the harm we only assume is the inevitable by-product of our actions. Let's say, when defending, we do not seek to harm a person, we seek to defend ourselves, and the harm done is an inevitable side effect. It's the same in war: a plane can bomb an ammunition factory (a legitimate target), and killing 50 people in a nearby hospital is a by-product. It's acceptable. But if the same plane deliberately bombs the hospital and kills 50 people, so that the factory workers in the neighborhood are horrified and fled wherever they look, this is already a war crime.
But here Judith Jarvis Thompson (philosopher) asked a reasonable question: they say, if the same number of people die there, then what is the difference? Imagine a pilot asking his superiors if they could drop a bomb that would kill 50 non-combatants. And the authorities answer: they say, it all depends on the intention with which you do it, son! Well, not well. Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, suggested that the doctrine of double effect should be supplemented with the "doctrine of double intent." They say that it is not enough just not to have the intention to kill civilians, it is also necessary to make efforts to minimize possible civilian casualties. In this case, the plane must not only choose legitimate targets for itself, but also, say, depart at night if there are fewer civilians in the radius of destruction in this case. And yes, even if it is more dangerous for the aircraft itself.
Frauwe's book lists a couple more approaches to the topic of civilian casualties, but they basically boil down to the fact that they are not acceptable in principle. From where one can only draw the conclusion "fighting is bad", but not comprehend the shades of war. But the obvious conclusions follow from the doctrine of double intent. Even if a certain party chooses a legitimate target, but does not make efforts to "reduce damage" - it acts unethically. For example, it conducts shelling during the day, not at night. Or uses a less accurate weapon instead of a more accurate one. The very choice of a legitimate target is no justification here.
Well, in the end, it's worth adding that the war poses too unpleasant questions for people, where many answers sound like "both are worse." If possible, just avoid war.
Mihail Pojarsky 2022-07-05
