The Just War Myth by Fiala Andrew;

Author:Fiala, Andrew;
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 1351109
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Published: 2013-06-26T16:00:00+00:00

DOUBLE STANDARDS, DIRTY HANDS, AND LESSER EVILS

One need not be an absolutist to recognize that there are good pragmatic reasons for viewing the prohibition on terrorism as, in effect, absolute. One effect of allowing for exceptions to the prohibition on terrorism is that the exceptions can appear to redefine the rule. We see this routinely in daily life in the ways in which individuals compromise their integrity bit by bit by making exceptions to basic moral principles. We also see this in political life: policies that were proposed as temporary exceptions become, through force of inertia, established precedents. Moreover, cruel officials can use the exception as an excuse for their malicious behavior—as happened at Abu Ghraib.

In response to this, my basic contention is that in political life, we are better off erring on the side of a cautious restraint of violence. If it is necessary to stray beyond this limit, we should admit that we are heading toward a region that is beyond the ordinary discourse of justification. Indeed, exceptions are fraught with uncertainty and risk. Said differently, to justify exceptions is to flirt with evil. It may turn out, as Michael Ignatieff has argued, that in reality we may have to choose “the lesser evil.”14 But we should be very clear about the dangers of making such devil’s bargains because none of us is a perfect angel.

Political agents who make exceptions view themselves or their situation as exceptional. For example, Americans view America as somehow exceptional, as discussed in chapter 5. Exceptional thinking often leads to a “double standard” in thinking about moral rules: “we” are allowed to make exceptions, but “they” are not. Political power has a tendency toward double standards. This results from the pursuit of self-interest and from a tendency to neglect the impartial standpoint. Political agents can drift toward the exceptional when morality becomes a hindrance to self-interest and when cynical realism appears to allow the use of any means necessary to accomplish our ends. The myths of political life make this drift more likely.

Exceptions are supposed to be temporary and rare suspensions of basic moral principles. But the risk is that the exceptional and temporary will come to be taken as a precedent. Walzer makes it clear that supreme emergencies are quite rare. Walzer says that the supreme emergency exemption to the rules of war kicks in when the threat is “close” and “serious.” 15 And he argues that, in the case he examines—Britain during the early years of World War II—there was only a narrow window during which the exemption applied. When Britain was under attack and before the United States had entered the war, it may have been justified to use terror bombing against German cities. The difficulty of this analysis is that it ignores what Jonathan Glover calls “military drift”: the tendency of military goals to overshadow moral constraints.16 Especially in times of crisis, there is an incremental creep toward excessive violence. Once the initial choice to use terror bombing is

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.