Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter approaches the question of the morality of targeted killing by developing a general theoretical framework for answering questions about what morality permits, forbids, and requires. The framework consists of three levels. At the first level is the consequentialist principle that one ought to choose that action from among the alternatives that will bring about the greatest net good in the world. This principle is decisive in determining the moral status of an action across a wide range of cases, but it can be preempted by principles that belong to the second level. At that level are the deontological principles that specify 'strong permissions', which allow an agent to choose an action that does not have the optimal consequences, and 'strict obligations', which require the agent to perform an action that does not have the optimal consequences. The right of self-defence is a strong permission, and the prohibition on deliberately killing one innocent person in order to save, say, three other innocents is a strict obligation. Normally, such permissions and obligations are decisive when they apply to a case, but at the third level of the framework is a principle that overrides those permissions and obligations in cases in which catastrophic consequences would otherwise ensue. Using this framework, a decision tree is constructed that shows at what point in the deliberation process, and how consequentialist and deontological considerations are to figure in a decision about the moral permissibility of an action.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationTargeted Killings
Subtitle of host publicationLaw and Morality in an Asymmetrical World
PublisherOxford University Press
ISBN (Electronic)9780191738975
ISBN (Print)9780199646470
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2012

Fingerprint

morality
obligation
self-defense
deliberation
human being

Keywords

  • Consequentialist principle
  • Deontological principles
  • Morality
  • Permissibility
  • Self-defence
  • Targeted killing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Moore, M. (2012). Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices. In Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0017

Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices. / Moore, Michael.

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Moore, M 2012, Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices. in Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0017
Moore M. Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices. In Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. Oxford University Press. 2012 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0017
Moore, Michael. / Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices. Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World. Oxford University Press, 2012.
@inbook{ab8edaf5594448d4bbc2926357a33ec2,
title = "Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices",
abstract = "This chapter approaches the question of the morality of targeted killing by developing a general theoretical framework for answering questions about what morality permits, forbids, and requires. The framework consists of three levels. At the first level is the consequentialist principle that one ought to choose that action from among the alternatives that will bring about the greatest net good in the world. This principle is decisive in determining the moral status of an action across a wide range of cases, but it can be preempted by principles that belong to the second level. At that level are the deontological principles that specify 'strong permissions', which allow an agent to choose an action that does not have the optimal consequences, and 'strict obligations', which require the agent to perform an action that does not have the optimal consequences. The right of self-defence is a strong permission, and the prohibition on deliberately killing one innocent person in order to save, say, three other innocents is a strict obligation. Normally, such permissions and obligations are decisive when they apply to a case, but at the third level of the framework is a principle that overrides those permissions and obligations in cases in which catastrophic consequences would otherwise ensue. Using this framework, a decision tree is constructed that shows at what point in the deliberation process, and how consequentialist and deontological considerations are to figure in a decision about the moral permissibility of an action.",
keywords = "Consequentialist principle, Deontological principles, Morality, Permissibility, Self-defence, Targeted killing",
author = "Michael Moore",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0017",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780199646470",
booktitle = "Targeted Killings",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
address = "United States",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Targeted Killings and the Morality of Hard Choices

AU - Moore, Michael

PY - 2012/3/1

Y1 - 2012/3/1

N2 - This chapter approaches the question of the morality of targeted killing by developing a general theoretical framework for answering questions about what morality permits, forbids, and requires. The framework consists of three levels. At the first level is the consequentialist principle that one ought to choose that action from among the alternatives that will bring about the greatest net good in the world. This principle is decisive in determining the moral status of an action across a wide range of cases, but it can be preempted by principles that belong to the second level. At that level are the deontological principles that specify 'strong permissions', which allow an agent to choose an action that does not have the optimal consequences, and 'strict obligations', which require the agent to perform an action that does not have the optimal consequences. The right of self-defence is a strong permission, and the prohibition on deliberately killing one innocent person in order to save, say, three other innocents is a strict obligation. Normally, such permissions and obligations are decisive when they apply to a case, but at the third level of the framework is a principle that overrides those permissions and obligations in cases in which catastrophic consequences would otherwise ensue. Using this framework, a decision tree is constructed that shows at what point in the deliberation process, and how consequentialist and deontological considerations are to figure in a decision about the moral permissibility of an action.

AB - This chapter approaches the question of the morality of targeted killing by developing a general theoretical framework for answering questions about what morality permits, forbids, and requires. The framework consists of three levels. At the first level is the consequentialist principle that one ought to choose that action from among the alternatives that will bring about the greatest net good in the world. This principle is decisive in determining the moral status of an action across a wide range of cases, but it can be preempted by principles that belong to the second level. At that level are the deontological principles that specify 'strong permissions', which allow an agent to choose an action that does not have the optimal consequences, and 'strict obligations', which require the agent to perform an action that does not have the optimal consequences. The right of self-defence is a strong permission, and the prohibition on deliberately killing one innocent person in order to save, say, three other innocents is a strict obligation. Normally, such permissions and obligations are decisive when they apply to a case, but at the third level of the framework is a principle that overrides those permissions and obligations in cases in which catastrophic consequences would otherwise ensue. Using this framework, a decision tree is constructed that shows at what point in the deliberation process, and how consequentialist and deontological considerations are to figure in a decision about the moral permissibility of an action.

KW - Consequentialist principle

KW - Deontological principles

KW - Morality

KW - Permissibility

KW - Self-defence

KW - Targeted killing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84920364527&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84920364527&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0017

DO - 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646470.003.0017

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84920364527

SN - 9780199646470

BT - Targeted Killings

PB - Oxford University Press

ER -