Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Civilian Immunity, Supreme Emergency, and Moral Disaster

  • Published:
The Journal of Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Any plausible position in the ethics of war and political violence in general will include the requirement of protection of civilians (non-combatants, common citizens) against lethal violence. This requirement is particularly prominent, and particularly strong, in just war theory. Some adherents of the theory see civilian immunity as absolute, not to be overridden in any circumstances whatsoever. Others allow that it may be overridden, but only in extremis. The latter position has been advanced by Michael Walzer under the heading of “supreme emergency.” In this paper, I look into some of the issues of interpretation and application of Walzer’s “supreme emergency” view and some of the criticisms that have been levelled against it. I argue that Walzer’s view is vague and unacceptable as it stands, but that the alternatives proposed by critics such as Brian Orend, C.A.J. Coady, and Stephen Nathanson are also unattractive. I go on to construct a position that is structurally similar to Walzer’s, but more specific and much less permissive, which I term the “moral disaster” view. According to this view, deliberate killing of civilians is almost absolutely wrong.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On the history, grounds, and scope of civilian immunity, see McKeogh (2002); Primoratz (2007).

  2. Apart from the writings discussed in this paper, the literature includes: Bellamy 2004; Brown 1983; Cole 2002; Cook 2007; Kaufman 2007; Lammers 1983; Mara 1986; Nardin 1986; Shue 2004; Statman 2006a, b; Toner 2005.

  3. When reprinting the essay in a recent book, Walzer inserted a bracketed remark on this. His amended view is that non-state terrorism might be justified in a supreme emergency, but only in the face of threat of genocide. As a matter of fact, though, “this kind of a threat has not been present in any of the recent cases of terrorist activity. Terrorism has not been a means of avoiding disaster but of reaching for political success” (Walzer 2004b: 54).

  4. Elsewhere I have argued that the bombing campaign cannot be morally justified by a supreme emergency nor, indeed, any other argument—that it was an utterly indefensible and unmitigated atrocity that deeply compromised the just cause for which the Allies were fighting (see Primoratz 2010).

References

  • Bellamy, A.J. 2004. Supreme emergencies and the protection of non-combatants in war. International Affairs 80: 829–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K.L. 1983. ‘Supreme emergency’: A critique of Michael Walzer’s moral justification for allied obliteration bombing in World War II. Manchester College Bulletin of the Peace Studies Institute 13: 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coady, C.A.J. 2004. Terrorism, morality, and supreme emergency. Ethics 114: 772–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. 2002. Death before dishonor or dishonor before death? Christian just war, terrorism, and supreme emergency. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 16: 81–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M.L. 2007. Michael Walzer’s concept of ‘supreme emergency’. Journal of Military Ethics 6: 138–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wijze, S. 2007. Dirty hands: Doing wrong to do right. In Politics and morality, ed. Igor Primoratz, 3–19. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, G.W.F. 1965. Philosophy of right (trans. Knox, T.M.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kaufman, F. 2007. Just war theory and killing the innocent. In Rethinking the just war tradition, ed. Michael W. Bough, John W. Lango, and Harry van der Linden, 99–114. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, S.E. 1983. Area bombing in World War II: The argument of Michael Walzer. Journal of Religious Ethics 11: 96–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mara, G. M. 1986. Justice, war, and politics: The problem of supreme emergency. In The nuclear dilemma and the just war tradition, ed. William V. O'Brien and John Langan S.J., 49–78. Lexington and Toronto: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeogh, C. 2002. Innocent civilians: The morality of killing in war. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardin, T. 1986. Nuclear war and the argument from extremity. In Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity: The fundamental questions, ed. Avner Cohen and Steven Lee, 289–305. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathanson, S. 2006. Terrorism, supreme emergency, and noncombatant immunity: A critique of Michael Walzer’s ethics of war. Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly 55: 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orend, B. 2001. Michael Walzer on war and justice. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orend, B. 2005. Is there a supreme emergency exemption? In Just war theory: A reappraisal, ed. Mark Evans, 134–153. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrović, D. 1994. Ethnic cleansing—An attempt at methodology. European Journal of International Law 5: 342–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primoratz, I. (ed.). 2007. Civilian immunity in war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primoratz, I. 2010. Can the bombing be morally justified? In Terror from the sky: The bombing of German cities in World War II, ed. Igor Primoratz, 113–133. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.

  • Ross, W.D. 2002. The right and the good, ed. Philip Statton-Lake. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Shue, H. 2004. Liberalism: The impossibility of justifying weapons of mass destruction. In Ethics and weapons of mass destruction, ed. Sohail Hashmi and Steven Lee, 139–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. 1988. Moral dilemmas. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statman, D. 2006a. Moral tragedies, supreme emergencies and national-defense. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23: 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statman, D. 2006b. Supreme emergencies revisited. Ethics 117: 58–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toner, C. 2005. Just war and the supreme emergency exemption. Philosophical Quarterly 55: 545–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. 1973. Political action: The problem of dirty hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs 2: 160–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. 2000. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations, 3rd ed. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. 2004a. Emergency ethics. In Arguing about war, 33–50. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

  • Walzer, M. 2004b. Terrorism: A critique of excuses. In Arguing about war, 51–66. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor Primoratz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Primoratz, I. Civilian Immunity, Supreme Emergency, and Moral Disaster. J Ethics 15, 371–386 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9077-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9077-8

Keywords

Navigation