Murder is one of those things that is always wrong, but murder is properly defined as "the intentional killing of the innocent." The intentional killing of the guilty is not always wrong, can be justifiable or even praiseworthy. The philosophical case for assassination begins with the idea that it can be a form of intentional killing of the guilty. Lots of people philosophically endorse the idea that assassinating Hitler would have been justified, for example.
Likewise, the philosophical case for assassination goes on to point out, the guilt of the political figure is often the actual and relevant guilt. If instead of assassination a dispute devolves into war, soldiers and policemen and outright innocents are likely to be killed who bear little or no guilt relevant to the dispute. Soldiers especially are likely to be honorable and to possess significant virtues of courage and self-discipline; the politicians we are protecting by fighting wars instead of assassination campaigns are usually neither honorable nor virtuous. It would arguably be much better to shoot the politicians one by one as they need it than to have the ordinary people slug it out on their behalf.
Governments and churches -- including the Church -- oppose assassination, but I often wonder if their unity here is more to do with the fact that they all represent a form of institutional power. Archbishops and Cardinals, and certainly Popes, might well worry that they too could fall prey to an assassin's bullet or blade. Keeping the structure of conflict pushed away from the powerful, with actual violence falling on the shoulders of the poorer and ordinary, is definitely in their self-interests as individuals, as members of their class, and as members of their institutions. Legislatures and churches may not be the most reliable source of philosophical insight to be had in this case.
I do not write to endorse the concept, but to raise the matter for consideration. Apparently a fair percentage of our youth, women as men, Republicans as Democrats, have come around to the idea. It's probably a good time to think it through.
9 comments:
Bonhoeffer was part of the plot to assassinate Hitler and is regarded as a Christian example. If I were to time travel to the 1920s and had Stalin and Lenin in my power, would I have them killed? We can always find exceptions to rules, but I don't know if those actually are legit. In such moments we are often too vulnerable to the encouragement of others for poor emotional reasons.
Like Gandalf and Galadriel, I am quite sure I do not trust myself with such power.
One always faces the practical issue that the alternative could be worse. The German High Command was behind the idea of war but on a slightly slower timetable, and the German people had reason to find the Nazis preferable to both the Communists and the Rightists at the time they were choosing. Knocking off Hitler might generate a timeline that effectively Nazi-fies Northern Europe and Russian Eurasia even if it avoids the Holocaust.
The Gandalf/Galadriel point is excellent. On the other hand, Tolkien does not seem at all troubled by massive death tolls at war; though helpfully you’d mostly be killing orcs. Back on the first hand, there’s the example of Gollum, whose guilt is clear, but whose death would have ensured Sauron’s victory.
I think back to your recent posts “an unusual step" and "let's check in on the department of justice". It seems that the powerful and connected have little to fear from the law - and both the laws, and the institutions that "uphold" them - are weaponized against the outgroup. Your examples show the rule of law breaking down to the point where an individual might conclude that there's no upside to respecting the law of the land if said law is merely a contrivance for destroying the out-of-favor.
An individual in that circumstance has some figuring to do.
The political and legal calculus is different than the moral calculus. If the law is being rendered meaningless by the actions of the well-connected, the legal calculus in favor of upholding the law suffers an increasingly critical weakness.
If politics becomes a naked exercise of power for the purposes of coercion - one in which legitimate points of view are made off-limits (perhaps labeled "insurrection"), and some forms of violence ("mostly-peaceful" demonstrations, mayhap) are blessed by the powers that be - then other forms of violent point-making don't seem that far out of bounds.
Morally speaking, I cannot say what the atheist, the Muslim, the Buddhist, et. al., might conclude when faced with such considerations.
But morally, the Christian has to consider that the princes of this world are not the real Power.
And that it does not pay to gain even the whole world at the cost of his own soul.
To quote from (of all places) Witcher:
Stregobor: Killing Renfri is… the lesser evil.
Geralt: Evil is evil, Stregobor. Lesser, greater, middling… it’s all the same. I’m not judging you. I haven’t only done good in my life either. But now, if I have to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.
And somewhere - perhaps on this site - I read someone who said that we cannot do good by doing evil. Whatever good we accomplish, the evil remains done.
And with regard to this:
Back on the first hand, there’s the example of Gollum, whose guilt is clear, but whose death would have ensured Sauron’s victory.
We don't know the outcome of our acts. Assassinating Kavanaugh may have resulted in the Democrats capitalizing on his death by confirming a liberal replacement which may in turn have so outraged the Right and the Center that Blue states turned Red and we ended up with a Constitutional amendment that banned all abortion everywhere. All we can do is the next thing right now and, as someone who has never had as robust one, I can tell you that a firm moral code is a great help in that.
It also seems to me that the concept of Just War (about which I know very little) enters in here somewhere. A lone assassin is a different proposition from a sniper in the service of a country - or of a revolutionary movement.
You are correct, Elise, that Just War Theory makes that distinction. Acts of war commanded by lawful authorities are supposed to be moral in a way that individual acts without authority are not.
That is one of the aspects of JWT that always struck me as suspect, but it's based on ancient Catholic theology that kings rule by the will of God (and thus that submission to authority, at least where kings are endorsed by the Church and have proper bishops guiding them, is a moral duty). The Declaration of Independence licenses a right to revolution that does not obligate the citizen to check with the Church first, nor indeed ever. This was a way in which the Church in the old days was reinforcing secular authority. (This process continued after the Reformation; Charles I argued in favor of the Church of England's authority in Scotland vs. other Protestant structures because "No bishop, no king.")
Still, you could certainly say something about the right of revolution requiring a kind of community assent on some scale or other. Whether assassination is ever a proper act, by any legitimate government or revolutionary movement, is a severable question.
I think it's a good distinction. The legitimacy a group may confer may be impaired by its own evil, but an individual has no right to confer authority on himself without consultation with others.
There may be circumstances where events take us by surprise and we are cut off, or left holding the bag on huge decisions. I think that is also distinct. But to take a planned course of action when the possible authority of a group is at least theoretically available to you is not justifiable. For even if the group approved of the assassination it might say "But not now. And not you. Other things must happen first."
Acts of war commanded by lawful authorities are supposed to be moral in a way that individual acts without authority are not.
Frederick Forsyth's is set during the Cold War. Two Jewish men who were denied the right to leave the Soviet Union and were blacklisted because of their application, assassinate the head of the KGB. They are not seeking revenge but rather to demonstrate that the KGB and the government as a whole are vulnerable; they hope this demonstration will spark revolt. Later, when the two men are in custody in the West, the Soviet Union attempts to assassinate them.
My sympathies are with the two men and not with the Soviet Union. And yet ...
This is not going to end well.
Post a Comment