Anscombe, Elizabeth - Mr Truman's Degree

10/22/2010

The Collected Philosophical Papers of GEM Anscombe, Vol 3: Ethics, Religion and Politics Ch 7 University of Minnesota Press, 1981 (Reprinted from pamphlet, Oxford 1957)

This paper takes a stance against Oxford's granting Harry Truman an honorary degree. Author considers Truman to be a villain, or at least unworthy of an honor. Author first starts with a series of fact-statements or observations: (pg62-4)
1) The Allies said they would follow the basic tenants of wartime respect for civilians as long as the Germans did too (assume this extends to the Japanese).
2) The goal of the war in Europe was established as 'unconditional surrender'. This absolutist position is questionable to author.
3) The Germans did seem to bomb indiscriminately.
4) Rhetoric surrounding the war was often about it being a fight between two whole nations, not two armies. The distinction between civilians and the military was deliberately blurred.
5) When the US declared war on Japan, they sought the objective of 'unconditional surrender'.
6) The Allies changed their strategy to involve widespread, mass bombings
7) The Allies refused to let Japan negotiate a surrender but instead use a new kind of weapon against them.

Author's primary principle in this paper is that to kill the innocent as a means to an end is, always, murder. (pg64) This isn't about 'following the rules as long as the other guy does', it is morally wrong no matter what. The argument is simple:
p1) The atomic bomb was dropped as a means of getting Japan to surrender unconditionally
p2) Innocent lives were undoubtedly killed by the bomb
c1) The person responsible for dropping the bomb killed innocent lives as a means to get Japan to surrender unconditionally.
p3) President Truman is responsible for dropping the bomb.
p4) To kill innocents as a means to an end (getting Japan to surrender unconditionally) is murder
c2) President Truman is responsible for murder.

Author first disputes that Truman is somehow courageous because he made a tough decision. And, given the conditions, many lives were saved by dropping the bomb. But author points out the conditions were inappropriate, 'barbarous'-- those of insisting on unconditional surrender. (pg65) Author further reformulates the argument that you can 'do evil so that good may come' as 'any fool can be as much of a knave as suits him'. (pg65)

In the second section of the paper, author explores how war can sometimes allow for the killing of innocents, perhaps as accidental to attacking valid military targets. Yet if the means for accomplishing a military end involve the killing of innocents, this is not accidental-- this is murder. (pg66-7) This leads to a larger discussion of who compromises 'the innocent' in a war. The people who work in the factories that make munitions? The farmers who grow the food for the front? The conscripts who would prefer not to fight but were drafted? Relating to conscripts, they are not innocent because "innocent" refers not to a condition but an action: someone who is trying to harm you is not an innocent.(pg67)

Author also examines the argument that 'all war is horror; it is only a matter of how much'. Author believes that denying this argument also involves denying pacifism, which author believes is a false doctrine. For author, there are legitimate killings, especially ones to stop injustice or harm to peoples. (pg68-9) Author also briefly describes a justification for the death penalty-- the killing of someone who has been determined to be a malefactor to society. (pg68-9) Author then makes a mockery of the argument that, since all war is evil, it doesn't matter whether innocents die or not-- author considers the argument absurd, even if the premise were true.

Author ends the paper by commenting on the state of moral philosophy at Oxford that might have sanctioned giving Truman the honorarium. (pg71)