Posted by
mgraves on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:54:27 PM
The Interface has a post on his blog titled, The face of evil. This blog provides a link to a Michael Yon piece, concerning same.
I’d been wrestling with a way to argue the sanctity of non-combatants in a way that goes beyond merely, “you don’t kill non-combatants”, as this is not accepted by the vicious murderers who oppose the West. The AQ philosophy is that non-combatants participate in the decadence of the West and support the West’s “oppression” of Muslims through their tax dollars and acquiescence to their government’s policies.
The Interface’s brief commentary launched me into a bit of a thought. What follows is largely the comment I left for the Interface.
Even if one stipulates that terrorists are justified in being angry at the U.S., it does not follow that they are therefore justified in murdering non-combatants. The Qutbite and Arafat fiction that civilians contribute to the military through their taxes and by supporting their troops is logically and morally unsustainable. Even chaplains serving in the military, without arms, are considered off-limits.
An analogy, perhaps, is appropriate (anyone mildly familiar with Islamic jurisprudence will appreciate it, at any rate). I am a fan of the Minnesota Twins. I listen to their games on the radio. I attend games when I am able. I visit their website to look for news (vote Pat Neshek). I study their box scores and stats (although, having lived through the Twins teams of the ‘90s, I don’t live and die with their success, or more commonly, lack thereof).
The fact that I am a Twins fan does not entitle me to blame or credit for wins or losses. The fact that I am a fan of the Minnesota Twins does not entitle me to a share of the World Series pot (should they ever return to the World Series). I don't bat, or pitch, play defense, or run the bases (and considering what an idiot base-runner I was, they can be glad of that) for the Twins. The same logic can apply here. The Israeli teacher, or any other civilian, may be a member of the reserves, but not under arms, and is not a contributing/combatant member of the military.
The non-combatant, even if part of the “system”, is not under arms, nor is he prepared to defend himself. One requires no sense of honor in order to kill another unawares. That is, of course, the problem.
This won’t convince anybody, but it does help me to put what I’d believed into perspective.
Secondly, those who conflate terrorists intentionally targeting civilians and soldiers who rarely and unintentionally kill civilians are obviously unfamiliar with the idea of intent.
Kant may have been many things (an incomprehensible bore, for one), but his emphasis on intent (as moral absolutism was explained to me) is key.
In philosophy class I was once given a scenario wherein a man with a deathly sick wife decided he would hurry the process and be rid of his wife. He concocted a collection of poisons and fed them to his very ill and close to death wife. Rather than finish her off, the poisons cured his wife. Is the man guilty of attempted murder?
Yes b/c that is what he tried to do. That is what he aimed to do. The fact that he failed is irrelevant. Our criminal justice system understands this, even if the moral relativists do not.
It is not always the thought that counts (President Johnson thought he could eliminate poverty with his disastrous Great Society), but it is true that intent is vital in judging the culpability of an act. Our legal system recognizes diminished responsibility for acts committed recklessly or negligently and greater responsibility for acts committed knowingly or “with malice aforethought”.
You’d think our punditocracy, who harp on the legal fiction “innocent until proven guilty”, would appreciate such a standard where U.S. troops are concerned.