Fo' Shue

A few thoughts that came from class today regarding the Shue reading and the Just Theory of War...

On Discrimination and Legitimate vs Illegitimate Targets. I accept that in a perfect ethical world-- where legitimate and illegitimate targets could be easily identified, the damage of an action could be measured and weighed, and good and evil were obvious-- that non-combatant immunity is a viable concept. Obviously no country can survive caving in to every time another uses civilian shields, so then I would support weighing civilian casualties/damage against the mission accomplished (whether it was worth it or not). The weighing and measuring would be simple, measured in Canadian Dollars or something.

Unfortunately that is not our world. Far from it, in fact... We have no one to decide what is moral, and no system to measure morality by. How do we decide what is a legitimate attack and what is not? For the last 8 years, our method has been to hand the reins over to a 'C' student from Yale riding on the coattails of his father and his own failed business sense. Obama is untested. Maybe his morals will more accurately reflect the moral base of our country (and the world???). Maybe not. Is this a majority rules situation? Probably not. In regards to proportionality, will the ends ever justify the means? Ask the majority, and they'll say that it is worth it to kill/maim a few to save many. I bet the few being killed/injured would disagree, if not for themselves, then for their families.

So I would agree in theory that there is little wrong with the great majority of Shue's writing. Most of it makes perfect logical sense. Kill the evildoers while the innocent forge on. In practice? Yeah, right. Sounds like some argument Dubya would use.