The article under consideration is called War and Innocence (90) where Robert Fullinwinder investigates the reasons and motivations of killing in the war. In particular, the author puts forward the idea that war enables people with the right to punish and to kill. This privilege does not imply any moral issues, as war is based on exclusively rational approach. According to the author, war must include moral and ethical issues even if it is not perpetuated on the paper. Arising from this, the main question of the article lies in the necessity to explain why noncombatants are murdered in the war. The author also assumes that there are cases when killing can be justified if considering the possibility of self-defense. The author, thus, rejects the idea that war is the main justification for killing thus seeking solid reasons for murdering innocent people. In that regard, Fillinwider condemns killing that exceeds the limits of self-defense attached both to combatants and to noncombatants where innocence is attached to the latter category only.
The shaped argument corresponds to further explanations and suggestions made by the author. In the closing part of the article, the researcher concludes that absent of self-defense should be compensated by the introduction of the legal conventions justifying killing in war. His radical point of view is approved by a presumption that civilian population harbors misconception in terms of comprehension of the meaning of punishment (Fullinwider 96).
The evidence and logical chains showed that the mentioned argument is worth consideration, as there are cases when self-defense may be disguised as the punishment of morally guilt people thus granting the possibility to kill innocent people. In other words, the author does not admits the new approaches in war blur the limits between guilty and innocent people so that written conventions that exclude killing on behalf of war. This argument implies that sometimes it is difficult to define innocent people during the war.
The conclusions made by the author provide several points for discussion. To begin with, the author makes a brilliant connection of the concept of self-defense with origin and essence of war excluding this concept. Secondly, by providing the argument against killing justified by war, he proves that war is not aimed at killing for self-defense. If it is true, killing is not executed for this particular purpose and admits killing innocent people.
The article thus lacks an accurate explanation of two categories: combatants and noncombatants, innocent and guilty. The problem is that these categories may be closely interwoven as during the war cannot set the distinctions between those categories. Especial consideration here requires the analysis of intentions of the innocent combatants with guilty noncombatants where it is difficult to find an optimal decision.
In particular, Fullinwider’s mistake lies in the fact that innocent people can be only referred as to noncombatants thus excluding the possibility to grant this privilege to combatants. In addition, the author does not presumes the fact that the right of innocent people to participate for the purpose of killing rather than for the purpose of self-defense. As a solution for the problem, the article manifest the urgent necessity to provide strict rules for conducting war that eliminates the “accidental” victims and aggression. Despite the above, the paper provides a consistent flow of arguments from the position of immunity.
Works Cited
Fullifinder, Robert. “War and Innocence”. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 5.1 (2000): 90-97. Print.