Pacifism and the "Double Effect"

by Mitch Ullman

I knew what I was getting into when I decided to read the Anscombe selection. However, I did not expect the forceful attitude against pacifism that would be taken, nor the apparent double standard of the “double effect” doctrine. I’ll attempt, with a merciful motive, to extract some of the venom and mend the wound appropriately. Keep in mind, this may hurt a little.

First off, I’d like to say just a little about Professor Anscombe. She was a student of Wittgenstein, and as such, has a lot of negative things to say about Rationalists and their ilk (read Descartes). She was also a Catholic theologian, which means that there will be a lot in the way of references to the Bible and the Pope as authorities appropriate for all matters ethical. One of her major contributions to contemporary philosophy was to give a name to the brand of Utilitarianism that Mill may have been attempting to proffer: consequentialism (or more specifically, rule-consequentialism). After all of this, one would realize that Professor Anscombe was analytic in her work; and would recognize this in her writing. Even if I may disagree with her on many counts, I did enjoy reading her methodological approach.

One thing that the reader may notice is that from the start there is an assumption. On the whole, it is a basic assumption that many social contract theorists make though they may not agree on the outcome: the world is a jungle without law, law requires coercion, coercion requires violence. It is based on this line of thought that we arrive at Professor Anscombe’s first remark: violence in the name of the law is necessary and right. As a matter of fact, in her opinion, it should be obvious unless you are some bleeding-heart romantic with no sense of reality. To back up this notion that violence is the only way by which to contain evil, Professor Anscombe makes her first fallacious statement. She returns to the idea of violence by rulers being just. Her example of such is that of a God containing the evils of the Devil through violent acts. I am fairly certain that in most philosophical circles, this appeal to inappropriate authority would garner more odd looks than it would appreciation and respect. Perhaps a more positivist (not of the legal sort, you just have to love philosophical jargon) view would have sufficed: many social animals, in nature, require violence in the maintenance of a hierarchical society. Keep in mind, this is not an endorsement of violence, but a meagre attempt at resuscitating Professor Anscombe’s argument.

Although she seems to acknowledge the certainty of malicious activities during wartime, Professor Anscombe appears to allow the praise of the people to sanctify unjust actions, considering the “extraordinary occasions” that preclude civility in the heat of battle to be excuse enough. This is an oversimplification of the concept, and as such, seems vague enough to be a cause for confusion. Now, ignoring the “extraordinary occasions” statement, which really does nothing to justify violence -much less warfare itself- our attention is directed, by Professor Anscombe to what is truly unjust and vile. I find it interesting that given the position that she took against President Truman as regards the use of nuclear bombs against Japan, due to the number of civilian deaths, -I abstain from the use of the term innocent due to its murky meaning- that Professor Anscombe did not spend more time in discussing the distinction of hostile military and civilian personnel. I haven’t much in the way of an argument against the distinction, only that I feel that the Professor could have elaborated a bit more in her description of civilians and her justifications for not bringing violence against them. It also seems strange, to me, to have glossed over the idea that warfare is just, even given the idea that warfare is, from beginning to end, full of unjust actions.

I take offense at the idea that secular humanists have some sort of misconception about Christianity that creates some new species of spineless pacifists who, for some reason, believe in some twisted mythology of the New Testament while rejecting the Old with its wrathful God and full-on obliterative wars. Doesn’t this somehow contradict the whole idea of a secular movement? Perhaps the finger pointing the Professor has going on at this point should be ignored and we’ll focus on the more relevant material. No, this is going to hurt, as I said before and we are going to attempt to pull from all the Bible quotes and speculation about civilizations long gone a glimmer of truth. I may have misunderstood this representation of morality as nothing more than a proselytization and justification for the modern Church, however, I will do what I can to show that it does contain a truth: morality is natural and obvious. Even while Professor Anscombe claims that due to the modern man’s proclivity toward malice and hate, the Church and its dogmas are necessary, she states most plainly that the immorality of the killing of innocents is obvious “especially to the poor victims.” Is this a formulation of a system of ethics? No, of course not. It is, however, a step away from the Hobbesian view of humanity that she was just proffering! The interesting implication, in my mind, is that once this step is taken there appears less justification for the violence by ruling authorities, internally or externally. There appears, also to be a misconstrued notion of pacifism in that it is a modern precept. She shadow-boxes with a pacifist who states that war is wrong because technology is getting to the point that all wars must end with total obliteration. She may have been able to digest this opponent with ease, however, she may have some difficulty with someone who actually holds -without resorting to inappropriate authority claims- that killing is wrong in any respect. While her logic is impeccable her assumptions about pacifism, I believe, are incorrect, leaving the Professor with an untenable position. What I find most ridiculous is the final claim that pacifism has lessened the impact of the idea that killing the innocent is immoral! By having a universal respect for humanity, for life, there is some danger of making the world ready and eager to slaughter the young and feeble. I can certainly see the connection.

And so on that note, we move along to the “double effect” conundrum and Professor Anscombe’s seemingly shaky use of the term. I will state, up front, that I found the apparent allusion to mental masturbation that Anscombe makes in reference to the Cartesian psychology. I’ll admit, it was long in the coming, but that is the standard by which one gauges their aptitude, literarily speaking. I find it hard to believe that the Christian ethics that Professor Anscombe discusses is the system of ethics that was peeking its head out of the muck just a few lines above. Apparently, in order for people to go about their lives without worrying about their fellow man’s plight, they may ignore their own ethics system in favor of the “double effect” doctrine. While on the one hand, it may be necessary to not kill they neighbor, it is not necessary to be responsible for the death of thy neighbor through -informed- inaction. To me, this is just as preposterous as the representation of Cartesian psychology given by Professor Anscombe. Now, I would like to say here that what I mean by informed inaction is similar to the situation that Singer gives with the boy in the pond scenario. I knowingly allowed the child to drown. That is murder, “double effect” or not. Now, as pertains to the idea of war, there is an issue that I think Professor Anscombe makes an excellent point, even if she does refer again to the Bible in the process: you are still culpable for the means, regardless of the justification for the ends. And in this, we again see Kant’s misshapen head rear its Deontology back into our world-view. No matter what the intent, there is still the issue of the method by which one achieves those goals. This flies in the face of the ‘to know peace is to know war’ frame of mind.

So with a new bandage, a few doses of some illicit opiates, we find ourselves at the end of this paper. I intended to repair the maladies which I saw plaguing the Professor's selected work, and I ended up jabbing it with a fork and pouring salt all over it, before I was done. Please be gentle, I've recently returned sutured, the bandage may seep.