Ethical Frameworks in the My Lai Massacre

Ethical Frameworks in the My Lai Massacre

• Utilitarianism: Focuses on consequences. The massacre likely did not maximize happiness or minimize suffering, furthering conflict.
• Deontology (Kant): Emphasizes duty and universalizability. Massacring civilians violates the principle of respecting persons as ends, making it morally wrong.
• Virtue Ethics: Examines character traits. Lack of compassion, courage, and justice contributed to the soldiers' actions.
• Individual vs. Collective Responsibility: Soldiers and superiors are both responsible. Soldiers retain agency, while superiors are accountable for orders and created climates.

Psychological Factors

• Obedience to Authority:  Explored following orders, as in the Milgram experiment.
• Dehumanization: Treating the enemy as less than human, impacting decision-making.
• Diffusion of Responsibility: Diminishes individual accountability.

Fullinwider's Argument on Self-Defense

• Self-Defense vs. Punishment: Self-defense prevents immediate threats, while punishment addresses past wrongs.
• Preference for Self-Defense: Focuses on present danger, not subjective guilt judgments, particularly in wartime.
• Limitations: Blurred line between self-defense and punishment; preemptive self-defense and determining "immediate threat."
• Difference from Traditional View: Traditional views often use "just punishment"; Fullinwider focuses solely on the present threat.

Combatants, Non-Combatants, and the Principle of Distinction

• Justification for Distinction: Non-combatants lack direct participation; retain basic human rights.
• Targeting Non-Combatants: Doctrine of double effect – unintended harm is permissible if proportionate.
• Technological Advancements: Blurs lines in warfare. Drones and cyber warfare raise question of combatants. How to avoid civilian harm?
• Mavrodes' Objection: "Innocence" is based on present threat, not moral purity.
• Fullinwider's Response: Focuses on present threat, regardless of moral character.

Just War Theory

• Application to Specific Conflicts: Analyze chosen wars (e.g., Iraq War, Syrian Civil War) against jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria.
• Limitations: Difficulty in application—subjective "just cause," calculating "proportionality," and distinguishing combatants from non-combatants in asymmetrical conflicts.
• Nagel's Qualified Absolutism: Some acts are always wrong, even with beneficial consequences (e.g., killing innocents).
• Law of Double Effect: Distinction between intended harm and unintended but foreseen harm. The line between them is often unclear.
• Atomic Bombings: Highly debated; arguments for and against ending war and saving lives, versus harming civilians. Context and alternatives crucial.

Democracy, War, and Moral Responsibility

• Kutz's Argument: Democratic societies may be more prone to war due to citizen ownership.
• Implications for Citizens: Responsibility for informed decision-making, questioning government actions, and holding leaders accountable.
• Humanitarian Intervention: Justification criteria (e.g., imminent threat, diplomatic attempts). Assessing risks and ensuring humanitarian actions, not national interest.

Singer's Argument and its Implications

• Central Argument: Suffering due to poverty is bad; preventing it is a moral obligation.
• "Drowning Child" Analogy: Illustrates moral obligation of assisting others.
• Implications: Radical shift in charity view—moral obligation, perhaps to the point of marginal utility.
• Traditional View vs. Singer: Charity as optional vs. moral obligation.
• Singer's General Principle: Analyzing components (preventing bad, comparable moral significance) and facing challenges.

Objections and Alternative Approaches

• Major Objections: Singer's principles are too demanding, impractical, and potentially harming.
• Singer's Responses: Addresses objections, emphasizing suffering prevention.
• Kuper's Critique: Individual charity is insufficient; needing systemic change, including political and economic interventions.
• Kuper's Approach: Focus on justice, rights, and tackling poverty's systemic causes.

Cosmopolitanism and Moral Responsibility

• Cosmopolitanism: All humans have equal moral worth, regardless of location. Global obligations.
• Influence on Arguments: Singer and Kuper are cosmopolitans, focusing on global poverty.
• Role of Different Actors: Governments, corporations, and individuals have a role in addressing global poverty.
• Balancing Wealth and Needs: Ethical dilemmas; applying justice theories (e.g., Rawls' difference principle) globally.

Explore the ethical frameworks surrounding the My Lai Massacre, including utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. This quiz examines both psychological factors and the notions of individual versus collective responsibility within the context of military orders and moral obligations.