The Good Kill

Author(s):  
Marc LiVecche ◽  
Timothy S. Mallard

The Good Kill examines killing in war in its moral and normative dimension. It argues against the commonplace belief, often tacitly held if not consciously asserted, among academics, the general public, and even military professionals, that killing, including in a justified war, is always morally wrong even when necessary. In light of an increasingly sophisticated understanding of combat trauma, this belief is a crisis. Moral injury, a proposed subset of posttraumatic stress disorder, occurs when one does something that goes against deeply held normative convictions. In a military context, the primary predictor of moral injury is having killed in combat. In turn, the primary predictor for suicide among combat veterans is moral injury. In this way, the assertion that killing is wrong but in war it is necessary becomes deadly, rendering the very business of the profession of arms morally injurious. It does not need to be this way. Beginning with the simple observation—recognized by both common sense and law—that killing comes in different kinds, this book equips warfighters and those charged with their care and formation with confidence in the rectitude of certain kinds of killing. Engaging with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Ramsey, Nigel Biggar, and other leading Christian realists, crucial normative principles within the just war tradition are brought to bear on questions regarding just conduct in war, moral and nonmoral evil, and enemy love. The Good Kill helps equip the just warrior to navigate the morally bruising field of battle without becoming irreparably morally injured.

The Good Kill ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 148-184
Author(s):  
Marc LiVecche

Chapter 5 defends against the challenge that the attitudinal requirements the just war tradition demands of just warriors are so severe as to be impracticable in actual combat, thus rendering moral injury practically unavoidable, even if in principle unnecessary. Against more extreme forms of dehumanization, callousness—the thickening of one’s skin—is presented as an important moral insulation for the warfighter, even as a martial virtue. Pushing against a popular taxonomy of four “images of the enemy” (perceived as the only possible ways that warfighters view those they war against and each of which is incompatible with the just war tradition), a fifth image is identified—that of the mournful warrior. Articulating the common-sense distinction between grief and guilt, this image is shown to be both compatible with the just war attitudinal mandate and regularly employed by warfighters in actual combat.


Worldview ◽  
1964 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Walter Stein

"Would you press the button you know is going to annihilate millions of people?""If the circumstances demanded it, I would."This reply, under oath, by Air Commodore Magill to Pat Pottle at the British Official Secrets Trial of February 1962, distils the essence of the deterrence strategy. In the light of common sense, and especially with reference to the just-war tradition, it also defines its essential immorality.As a prosecution witness, the Air Commodore was being cross-examined by one of the accused who had invaded a nuclear base in protest and who was later sentenced to imprisonment for this offense.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig J. Bryan ◽  
AnnaBelle O. Bryan ◽  
Erika Roberge ◽  
Feea R. Leifker ◽  
David C. Rozek

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chantelle S. Lloyd ◽  
Andrew A. Nicholson ◽  
Maria Densmore ◽  
Jean Théberge ◽  
Richard W. J. Neufeld ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPH BURCHARD

Carl Schmitt's Der Nomos der Erde allows us to rethink his interlinked proposals for the organization of the Weimar Republic, namely his theory of ‘democratic dictatorship’ and the ‘concept of the political’. Connecting the domestic homogeneity of an empowered people with the pluralism of the Westphalian state system, Schmitt seeks to humanize war; he objects to the renaissance of the ‘just war’ tradition, which is premised on a discriminating concept of war. Schmitt's objections are valid today, yet their Eurocentric foundations are also partially outdated. We are thus to argue with Schmitt against Schmitt to reflect on possibilities for the humanization of war.


2012 ◽  
Vol 127 (527) ◽  
pp. 976-978
Author(s):  
C. S. L. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 859-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER LEE

AbstractOver the past three decades Jean Bethke Elshtain has used her critique and application of just war as a means of engaging with multiple overlapping aspects of identity. Though Elshtain ostensibly writes about war and the justice, or lack of justice, therein, she also uses just war a site of analysis within which different strands of subjectivity are investigated and articulated as part of her broader political theory. This article explores the proposition that Elshtain's most important contribution to the just war tradition is not be found in her provision of codes or her analysis of ad bellum or in bello criteria, conformity to which adjudges war or military intervention to be just or otherwise. Rather, that she enriches just war debate because of the unique and sometimes provocative perspective she brings as political theorist and International Relations scholar who adopts, adapts, and deploys familiar but, for some, uncomfortable discursive artefacts from the history of the Christian West: suffused with her own Christian faith and theology. In so doing she continually reminds us that human lives, with all their attendant political, social, and religious complexities, should be the focus when military force is used, or even proposed, for political ends.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document