The Risk Versus The Need May 8, 2018 51344928 Power and Responsibility: Doing Philosophy with Superheroes Professor Christopher Robichaud War is often times defined as a state of conflict, often armed, between states, countries, societies, etc. Because its characterized by extreme aggression, destruction, and mortality, it is often chosen as a last result by many countries, while other countries anticipate war just as one would anticipate going to a football game. While war is usually against two sides who go in prepared for battle, there are many innocent civilians on both sides that are often thrust into war as unwilling participants and even worse, many civilians unfortunately become innocent casualties of war. In the movie The Avengers, we watched this happen first hand as many civilians unfortunately become innocent casualties of a war they never asked for. Because the Avengers were forced to engage the evil mercenaries in a densely-populated area that was home to many Wakandans, the Avengers, superheroes whose normal primary objective is to protect innocent civilians, now found themselves to be the cause of death of many innocent civilians due to their war with the mercenaries. A peril of war that often leaves many heartbroken. The doctrine of double effect is often implemented to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the deaths of innocent people not directly involved in the conflict or extreme damage to cities, towns etc. According to the principle of double effect, it is permissible to cause a harm as a side effect of bringing about a good result in war even though it would not normally be permissible to cause such a harm or in other words a harm that one would otherwise be obliged to avoid. I believe a great example of the principle of double effect would be "The Avengers" causing the deaths of civilians by engaging those mercenaries in a densely-populated area. The Avengers took a risk as a side effect of pursuing a good end goal of winning the battle against the mercenaries. This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle of double effect requires four conditions be met for the action in question to be considered morally permissible. The action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; Secondly, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be "proportionate to" the bad result. Many people who support this principle argue that, in situations of "double effect" where all these conditions are met, the action is deemed morally permissible despite the bad result. This is a practice widely adopted by many military forces around the world. The double effect prin ...

1. The Risk Versus The Need
May 8, 2018
51344928
Power and Responsibility: Doing Philosophy with Superheroes
Professor Christopher Robichaud
War is often times defined as a state of conflict, often armed,
between states, countries, societies, etc. Because its
characterized by extreme aggression, destruction, and mortality,
it is often chosen as a last result by many countries, while other
countries anticipate war just as one would anticipate going to a
football game. While war is usually against two sides who go
in prepared for battle, there are many innocent civilians on both

2. sides that are often thrust into war as unwilling participants and
even worse, many civilians unfortunately become innocent
casualties of war.
In the movie The Avengers, we watched this happen first hand
as many civilians unfortunately become innocent casualties of a
war they never asked for. Because the Avengers were forced to
engage the evil mercenaries in a densely-populated area that
was home to many Wakandans, the Avengers, superheroes
whose normal primary objective is to protect innocent civilians,
now found themselves to be the cause of death of many innocent
civilians due to their war with the mercenaries. A peril of war
that often leaves many heartbroken.
The doctrine of double effect is often implemented to explain
the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such
as the deaths of innocent people not directly involved in the
conflict or extreme damage to cities, towns etc. According to
the principle of double effect, it is permissible to cause a harm
as a side effect of bringing about a good result in war even
though it would not normally be permissible to cause such a
harm or in other words a harm that one would otherwise be
obliged to avoid. I believe a great example of the principle of
double effect would be "The Avengers" causing the deaths of
civilians by engaging those mercenaries in a densely-populated
area. The Avengers took a risk as a side effect of pursuing a
good end goal of winning the battle against the mercenaries.
This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for
determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action
in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will
also bring about bad results. The principle of double effect
requires four conditions be met for the action in question to be
considered morally permissible. The action contemplated be in
itself either morally good or morally indifferent; Secondly, that
the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good
result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth,
that the good result be "proportionate to" the bad result. Many

3. people who support this principle argue that, in situations of
"double effect" where all these conditions are met, the action is
deemed morally permissible despite the bad result. This is a
practice widely adopted by many military forces around the
world. The double effect principle allows less accountability for
the harming of bystanders.
Although many would argue the fact remains that innocent
civilians were put into harm’s way and died as a result of the
Avengers taking this risk, however, we must take a step back to
look at the bigger picture of what war entails. Doing this may
help many see the more optimistic glass-half-full viewpoint of
not only this particular example but also what war brings about.
Over the course of decades we have come to see that
mercenaries typically have no soft spot for civilian casualties
nor would they ever deter from their primary mission of
winning for their cause. It would only stand to reason that
these mercenaries would also go after civilians if that meant
distracting the other side (The Avengers). In contemporary
armed conflicts, civilians often make up an overwhelming
majority of casualties of war and many times have been
deliberately targeted by the other side and that should also be
something to consider when deciding the level of importance of
protecting civilians in cases of war. In other words, it could
have been worse. The mercenaries could have cause even more
destruction to Wakanda and its citizens had the battle not been
forged then and there. Acknowledging situations that could
happen is a war fighting strategy that goes hand in hand with
wars. War is like playing chess you have to plan your moved
based on what counter moves your opponent may implement and
in many cases hard decisions must be made in order to win
wars. Decisions are made that may not always line up with
one’s moral compass however these decisions are what you rely
on to keep you and your allies alive.
War is a beast that can never be mapped out in its entirety and
one has no way of knowing what the end results may be, In

4. many cases there are the unforeseen circumstances due to the
effects of war and we must look at war and any unforeseen
circumstances through a different set of moral lenses. Morals
that dictate what is right and wrong or what is human or
inhumane by the same set of morals that are used on a daily
basis does not have a place in the art of war. Morally
permissible is described as something that may be permitted by
one's morals. Essentially something is "morally permissible" if
it can be done without violating one's code of morals/ethics. In
the act of war we must take a less skewed viewpoint on what is
morally permissible when it comes to war and the repercussions
of the risks surrounding that war. Morally permissible risks
that are taken in battle must be looked at differently than the
way we look at everyday experiences. In the case of the
Avengers taking on the mercenaries, I would say that it was
absolutely morally permissible for the Avengers to take this risk
even when the outcome could be the death of innocent lives as
casualties of the war. If accountability was what drove either
side then decisions of where or when to engage their enemy
would be less cut and dry. When we focus on morals than on the
war, then and only then would the doctrine of double effect no
longer matter because the focus would now be one of safety of
the innocent villagers as opposed to just neutralizing the threat
and winning the war which should be the only focus when at
war.
Allan, (2015), defines the double effect principle as phrase used
about an explanation given as an excuse for an action that is
bound to cause significant harm, for instance, the ending of
human life, as a side effect that transpires in pursuit of a greater
good. In other words, the doctrine of double effect suffices in
the explanation of the permissibility of activity with known and
foreseeable harmful outcome. While this school of thought
might sound inhumane in the face of the International
Humanitarian Law, at least at face value, an interrogation of the
circumstances and contexts within which such can happen

5. reveals a valid side. Therefore, the plausibility of the double
effect mentality is inspired by the fact that sometimes, some
actions have to be done at the expense of others. In so doing,
the element of permissibility is grounded on the fact that such
activity, despite having the potential to bring about harm, is
premised on the pursuit of a better result. In that light,
philosophers have argued that the prize for which collateral
damage is allowed has to be higher than the harm that results as
a side effect (Potter, 2015). An example is told of the fact that a
driver, in the face of the eminent accident with two probable
outcomes (killing one or many), chooses to run over a cyclist on
a bridge. Before branding the act as wrong in the face of
humanity, it should be understood that the other possibility, for
which the motorist chose to forgo, was plunging into the river
with several passengers. While the killing of the rider is, in
plain sight, not permissible, in this context, the action receives
the permissibility green light with the intention of taking one
life to save many.
According to Michael Walzer, the blowing up of German
metropolis by other forces allied to the course was an act of
alleviating greater disaster (Allan, 2015). It then was
permissible because it was done to arrest a ‘supreme
emergency.' Walzer's is the argument that the Nazis had to be
‘controlled' through the means of military power. Otherwise,
they would have done the continent of Europe more harm than
good. In his submission on this matter, the philosopher
subscribes to the school of thought that the powers that be had
moral permissibility to bomb the cities of Germany in a quest to
dehorn the threat that was the Nazi kingdom. Michael Walzer
opines that the concept of ‘dirty hands' is a desperate measure
permissible to political factions that find themselves between a
hard place and a rock. Therefore, given the situation of the anti-
Nazi forces, the resolve to kill and maim a significant
population of Nazis residing in the urban areas, civilians and
combatants alike, seemed justifiable (Allan, 2015). The
philosopher successfully advances the notion that the Nazi

6. situation was so serious a situation that it warranted a terrorist
‘intervention' on the German populations.
It is in the supreme emergency discussion that a question of
whether or not a ‘supreme emergency' would be justifiable is
posed. Philosopher Walzer offers that be that as it may, then
some sub-state terrorist activity is deemed fit as a remedy to the
foreseen happenings (Allan, 2015). Further, Michael Walzer
supports his theory through the proposal that the act of bombing
by allied forces is justifiable with regards to the fact that the
action was inspired by intentions to prevent genocidal activity
plans of the Nazis (Allan, 2015). In his defense of the supreme
emergency notion, there was the perception that the ambitions
of the Nazi forces would prevail upon the Germans to prescribe
mass killing of the British community. In support of his theory,
Michael Walzer deconstructs the idea that modern terrorism
masterminded and executed by administrations have not been
inspired by a pursuit of political mileage but rather the
intentions of voiding disaster. Given the idea that the allied
forces seemed to share a common concern of protecting the
Britons' way of life by destabilizing and killing a few of their
enemies, the exemption of dirty hands appears to be plausible.
In the event, the mercenaries have hatched a plan to attack a
Wakandan city through the deployment of a biological weapon,
and that there is a probability that there could be casualties in
millions, it makes it incumbent upon the Avengers to engage the
combatants. It must be understood that the engagement and
challenge of the mercenaries have to be by the use of lethal
force. The intention of the mercenaries toward the city is vile,
to say the least. Additionally, according to International
Humanitarian Law, a military faction can only attack another
one of the same statuses. Therefore, it is wrong that the
terrorists have set their target on the innocent civilians and
Wakanda land. On these grounds, it becomes justifiable to seek
to protect the lives of the potential victims (Allan, 2015). On
these grounds, the Avengers have the reason and motivation to
attack the mercenaries. Be that as it may, the actions of the

7. Avengers will be plausible. That will be based because the
Avengers mean well through their intentions to protect the lives
of millions of people. That way, despite the fact that taking
away of people's lives is wrong, it is plausible and justifiable in
the context of defense, either for self or of others. In this case,
therefore, the killing of a few terrorists, even if it means
sacrificing a few innocent civilians, maybe in their hundreds, is
a worthy undertaking for the primary objective of saving many
more lives that could fall victim to biological weaponry.
On the flip side of the coin, there is bound to be an opposition
to the step taken by the Avengers to remedy the impending
situation. In the eyes of dissenting views, human life is sacred
regardless of circumstances. That, therefore, advances an
argument that the attacking of the biological weapon terrorists
with an intention to kill them is wrong in itself. The rationale
for that school of thought is the fact that no life better than the
other (Potter, 2015). That, again, brings forth a notion that the
potential casualties of collateral damage in the attack on the
terrorists have an equal right to life as do the millions.
Therefore, no one has the moral authority to decide whose life
is worth taking and which one is fit for killing. Also, the
International Humanitarian Law advocates for the respect of life
regardless of the offense. In such a case, the argument that
holds and therefore will pose the strongest objection is the right
to life. All said and done; I don't think the objection is
successful. That is because the universal human instinct is and
will always be to serve the greater good, a pursuit that is known
to have collateral damage in the realms of the combat force.
However, let’s take a step back and look at this form a different
perspective. Let's assume that accountability for human lives
was put as the forefront of war strategies as opposed to the
mission of winning the war. One important criticism that has
arose focuses on the difficulty of distinguishing between grave
harms that are regretfully intended as part of the greater good
and grave harms that are regretfully foreseen as side effects of

8. the greater good. Opposers of the double effect principle often
believe that we as humans are responsible for all the anticipated
consequences of our actions and if we can foresee the two
effects of our actions then we have to take the moral
responsibility for both effects. We can’t claim moral ignorance
by deciding to focus only on the effect that suits us or in this
case wins us the battle. Although winning the war would still
be the primary objective for the Avengers, now the strategy in
attaining that win would be different because they now have the
added responsibility of the safety of innocent people who may
get harmed in the crossfire, The enemy, in this case the
mercenaries, would be harder to neutralize because the
Avengers would have to change their strategy, instead of
engaging the enemy head on, the focus now shifts to allow for
the safe extraction of civilians prior to engaging the enemy.
Although this new focus would be considered morally
acceptable is it one that would allow more success in winning
the overall war against the mercenaries or does it hinder their
capabilities of ending the war as quickly as possible?
References
Allan, L. (2015). The Principle of Double Effect. URL=<
http://www.rationalrealm. com/philosophy/ethics/principle-
double-effect. html.
Potter, J. (2015). The Principle of Double Effect in End-of-Life
Care. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 15(3), 515-
529.