Nagel: War and Massacre

Conclusion: There is a clear distinction from noncombatants and combatants. The distinction is whether or not one is functionally innocent/guilty. It is at no time justifiable to harm noncombatants during warfare.

1.     There is a clear distinction between who noncombatants and combatants are.

a.     Noncombatants are those who are functionally innocent/guilty (69).

b.  Combatants are those who are actively seeking harm against us (69).

2.     Functional innocence/guilt is imperative when identifying noncombatants and combatants during warfare (68).

a.     Those who are functionally innocent/guilty are not actively seeking harm upon others (69).

b.     This includes women, children, elderly, injured, and those who aid in the “mere existence” of army personnel (69).

3.     The two categories are not distinguished by moral innocence/guilt.

a.     Defining noncombatants from combatants by moral innocence/guilt would be too broad of a category (68).

b.     The main problem would be what moral “innocence” is (68).

c.      This would justify killing those who do not deserve to die (69).

4.     There are no justifications for killing noncombatants during warfare (68).

a.     “According to the absolutist position, deliberate killing of the innocence is murder” (68).

b.     Absolutist position states that it is impermissible to harm the innocent (71).

c.      If noncombatants are harmed, the war is unjustified.