War and Innocence Fullinwider
Non Combatants innocent
Believes the killing of innocent non combatants is not justified.
Prohibited to kill non combatants, Justified intentional killing of combatant.
EX: Jones walking, Smith takes a gun and starts shooting at him, jones shoots smith in
self defense & kills him. Jones= Morally justified.
EX 2: Mobsters (noncombatants) tell smith (combatant) that he has to kill Jones.
Fullinwider believed that Smith was the agent of immediate threat to jones, the mobsters
aren’t posing immediate threat, therefore they are immune to being killed by Jones
through self defence.
it is justifiable for jones to kill smith, but not those who led smith to try to kill
Idea applies to combatants & non combatants.
It is justified to kill the combatant, NOT justified to kill the non combatant who did not
directly try to kill.
All parties, Smith & mobsters are liable because they are guilty from the point of view
that they should be punished.
Only smith is liable to be killed in self defense, because mobsters didn’t impose direct
Obligation to not kill noncombatants stems from obligation to not kill morally innocent.
Neither principles permit intentional killing of morally innocent noncombatant.
Morally obliged to refrain from killing this class.
Agrees with Fullinwider that after killing smith (combatant) who is the direct threat to
jones. He cannot kill mobsters (noncombatants) under self defense principle. Because
threat to life is gone.
BUT Jones CAN kill mobsters (non combatants) in self defense if by doing so, It will
cause Smith (combatant) to repent.
EX if mobsters had a gun on smith ordering him to kill Jones, jones should kill mobsters
if killing them would be no riskier than killing smith. It would remove smiths motive to
kill Jones. Person X may be killed in self defense regardless of moral innocence if it is perceived
1) There is requisite threshold of danger, or greater
2) Killing X would reduce danger
3) Desirable courses of action will not eliminate condition
4) More desirable courses of action will not reduce danger as much as killing
Combatants at the front like are less of a threat than their supplier of ammunition (non
Fullinwiders error= assuming that one whos activity is not the direct threat to another’s
life, is immune from being killed in self defense, even though he is a sufficient cause..
Possible that he thinks that only those who are likely to pull the trigger may be killed.
The right to kill in self defence requires that the person killed be a necessary or sufficient
cause of danger, not that he be morally guilty.
Non combatants are not necessarily less causes of danger than combatants
Intentional killing of innocent non combatants is NOT necessarily immoral if one
accepts the principle of selfdefense.
Famine Affluence & Morality SINGER
Badness of suffering and death Moral principle: If its in your power to prevent bad things from happening without
sacrificing anything of Comparable moral importance, then you ought to morally do it.
EX: If walking past a shallow pond & see child drowning, I ought to go in and pull the
child out. This means getting clothes muddy, but its insignificant, where death of child
would be very bad.
We shouldn’t help only someone who is close to us, also those far away (People
starving in Bengal)
We cannot discriminate against someone merely because they are far away.
It is possible that we are in a better position to judge what needs to be done to
help a person near us than far away.
One feels less guilty about doing nothing is one can point out that other have also done
nothing. This is the ideal excuse for inactivity.
This example ^^^ seems absurd THOUGH when thinking about the situation of the child,
that you are less obligated to save them if someone else is in the same position, same
Giving to Bengal relief is considered an act of charity, it should be a duty.
Thinks people should judge others who indulge in luxury instead of giving to
famine relief the way that they judge people who take another’s property.
Criticizes humans behavior most people are self interested to some degree, very few of
us are likely to do everything that we are supposed to do.
Believes that if no one gives voluntarily, that a government will assume that its citizens
are uninterested in famine relief & don’t wish to be forced to give aid.
Many people believe that it’s the government’s responsibility.
Believes that people are only entitles to keep their earnings if there is no way for them to
prevent a greater evil by giving them away.
Believed that by the greater evil rule, that Singer means that to be justified in refusing to
give, you must show that the unpleasantness you would experience is of equal importance
of the harm preventing, other wise you must consent.
However, in the case of Kidneys/ Eyes, you have rights. In Arthurs opinion.