A war has this peculiar thing about it. It’s a social practice that publicly violates the most universally acknowledged ethical restriction - the commandment against killing - and yet is a common vocation. Albeit one that is unquestionably controversial. From a global perspective, only a minor share of countries do not have a functioning military. As a result, a country's overall competency is generally equated with its capacity to wage war in the 21st century. And whether you like it or not, we are all involved: as taxpayers, we fund the war artillery, and as citizens, we recognize and support the troops who put their lives on the line for us during a war. Why? because it requires them to get their hands dirty for us, so we can continue living our convenient modern lives, in our expensive homes. Also, because no one seems to be genuinely disputing this. Whatever perspective we take, war entails death, which makes it problematic, even if it appears to be appropriate and even necessary at times. However, civilian deaths are not inescapable. The military does usually decide on an acceptable number ahead of any planned attack. The resulting civilian deaths may appear to be unavoidable tragedies, yet they are not. Casualties among civilians are not inevitable. They are an option. The assumption that civilians are entitled to distinct protection in times of war is generally presumed rather than established. When in reality, the population inside a projected explosion radius is generally surveilled and estimated by a national military to estimate how many people would die in its attacks. It also establishes a limit on how many innocent citizens each order is allowed to harm inadvertently. This non-combatant cutoff value (NCV), is likely the most stringent rule of war, and it differs by location for political reasons. But the problem is that the idea of civilian or non-combatant immunity is doubly difficult to apply. On one hand, it's impossible to see the difference between the two groups of individuals - combatant and non-combatant - so the issue of whether one should be protected over the other is faulty from the outset. On the other hand, the prioritization of a feature of action – intention – whose meaning and ramifications are far more problematic than most discussions of war ethics recognise. Despite this, the idea is still at the heart of a lot of debate globally. As a result, we must consider why it is so important and what role it plays in war debates. If war is humanity's curse, the massacre of the vulnerable is its most heinous incarnation. Thousands, if not millions, of young soldiers die, and their losses are grieved yet accepted. Conversely, the killings of a handful women, children, or the elderly at the hands of the military elicits outrage. Such killings have been condemned from the dawn of time as brutal, unethical, and atrocious. Ethical prescriptions and international law have both denounced the evil and attempted to limit it if not eradicate entirely. It is only natural to have more concern for our own countrymen as opposed to foreigners. Your love for your friends and family will not and cannot be equal to your love for a stranger hundreds of miles away in a foreign nation. But does this concern and love give you the permission to kill that stranger in order to attain your objectives? I’ll just leave you with this thought here: Although legally veracious, our utilitarian stance is neither courageous nor ethically ambitious for a superpower committed to the belief that all men are created equal.
