Zohar on Self-Defense

Collective War and Individualistic Ethics

Introduction

• Author: Noam J. Zohar

• Published in: Political Theory, November 1993

• Key Theme: Examination of the moral implications of war through the lens of individual ethics versus collective action.

Moral Justification of War

• Central Question: Is war ever morally justified?

• Doctrine of Total War vs. War Ethic:

  • Total war neglects moral considerations when targeting individuals, viewing them only as parts of an enemy collective.

  • A war ethic distinguishes between military targets (soldiers) and innocent populations (civilians).

  • Killing civilians is equated with murder, while killing soldiers in combat is subject to moral scrutiny.

The Concept of Innocence in Warfare

• Innocence and Guilt:

  • The distinction of civilians as "innocent" raises questions about the inherent guilt assigned to enemy soldiers.

  • Zohar highlights that many soldiers may not share culpability for the aggression of their state.

  • Assessing each soldier's guilt is complex and undermines the oversimplified categorization of all soldiers as aggressors.

The Limits of Individualism in War

• Self-Defense Justification:

  • Discussion of how analogies from self-defense may misrepresent the intricacies of collective wartime ethics.

  • Examples used by philosophers like Judith Thomson to argue for justifiable actions against innocently threatening individuals (e.g., deflection of a falling person).

  • Zohar critiques the applicability of these individualistic arguments within the context of war.

Moral Guilt and Aggression

• Understanding Aggressors:

  • The necessity of attributing some level of guilt to an aggressor (including madmen and children) to validate self-defensive actions.

  • Zohar challenges the notion that moral innocence absolves an individual from justifiable defensive measures against them.

Causality and Moral Judgment

• Causal Involvement in Threats:

  • The argument that causal involvement (e.g., a person blocking an escape route) complicates moral assessments of survival.

  • Zohar argues that moral judgment must assess not just the actions but the intentions behind those actions, undermining reliance on mere causal analysis.

Immoral Military Strategies

• Strategic vs. Terror Bombing:

  • Distinction made between strategic bombing (targeting military infrastructure) and terror bombing (targeting civilians) in wartime.

  • The latter is deemed morally indefensible as it violates the very principles of individual morality endorsed by the war convention.

A Dual Moral Perspective

• Validity of Individual vs. Collective Ethics:

  • Zohar posits that human reality encompasses both individual interactions and collective engagements.

  • Each perspective demands its set of moral considerations, creating potential conflicts that require resolution.

Conclusion

• Synthesis of Perspectives:

  • Moral analysis of warfare must navigate between individual embarrassment and collective responsibilities.

  • Zohar calls for maintaining distinctions in moral reasoning while acknowledging that in wartime some innocents may be unjustly harmed.

  • The critical distinction captured by the war convention is preservation of the individual perspective against the collective narrative of violence and aggression.