Philosophy goes to war

A new book* by a leading academic philosopher invites us to do some thinking about war, terror and morality.

Anyone who thinks of moral philosophers as other-worldly beings developing abstract principles far divorced from the muddle and mess of ordinary life should read Ted Honderich. Here is the Grote Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at University College London mixing it in no uncertain terms on the battlefields of contemporary moral debate. What, he asks, are we to make of the rights and wrongs of Palestine, 9/11, Iraq and 7/7?  Honderich develops an innovative basis for answering these questions, with conclusions that are sometimes surprising and always challenging.

Some things help, but only a little: since international law, UN resolutions and human rights need themselves to be morally justified, they provide at best “moral data”, while just war theory poses every possible problem of interpretation (what is a “last resort”, what is “proportionality”?). Political perspectives are worse. Honderich regards conservatism as little more than disguised self-interest, while liberalism is morally vacuous. The idea that because it synthesises many points of view democracy itself (or democracies themselves) can be trusted to arrive at valid moral judgments falls at the first hurdle (the argument is circular). Even if it could get to its feet, it would then fall at all the remaining hurdles, particularly the fact that the vast inequalities seen in contemporary democracies make a mockery of any claim to inclusiveness.

For ourselves we all necessarily value “good lives” based on certain “great goods” (a reasonable length of healthy life, relationships with others, freedom from coercion, and access to forms of cultural expression), and we cannot escape that we are rational beings. Honderich thinks this commits us to what he calls the “principle of humanity”, the injunction “to take rational steps to the end of getting and keeping [other] people out of bad lives”. That in essence is the principle he applies to Palestine, 9/11, Iraq and 7/7.  It is the basis on which he thinks about terror and terrorism, war, negotiation and the moral standing of our leaders.

Where does it lead?  Terrorism - defined as violent, illegal, politically-motivated, on a scale smaller than war and prima facie wrong - may in some circumstances nonetheless be justified and command our outspoken support.  It may conform to the principle of humanity.  The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 was “right”, and Jewish terrorism justified. However, as resistance has since demonstrated, the Zionist project violated nascent Palestinian national aspirations, and so was based on a mistake. One should distinguish between Zionism (honourable) and neo-Zionism (defined as the project of expanding beyond Israel's 1967 borders, and which offends the principle of humanity at every turn).  9/11 and 7/7 come close to wrongs so palpable they need no analysis.  However, if argument is needed, in neither case could it rationally have been believed that the wreckage they foreseeably made of other people's lives could possibly have led to better lives elsewhere.

And Honderich is quite clear that the horrors of an Iraq war repugnant in every way to the principle of humanity are part of the “moral context” of the 7/7 attack. Blair’s attempt to deny it only shows the bad faith to which he has resorted in evading his share of the responsibility.

* “Humanity, Terrorism, Terrorist War” by Ted Honderich (Continuum 2006)