Innocent Threats Versus Innocent Bystanders

Abstract This chapter is the first part of the argument that there is no fundamental, principled reason why noncombatants who help unjust combatants to wage war may not be eliminatively killed. It starts by explaining why it is hard to justify killing an innocent bystander to save an innocent victim. It then argues that the choice whether to kill an innocent threat or allow an innocent victim to die is a closer call. In particular, one cannot reason from the premise that a threat owes a victim some sacrifice to the conclusion that his harm can be discounted in the way suggested by those who would invoke a lesser-evil justification. Instead, there are both agent and patient effects of being a threat, effects that make it easier to justify killing a threat, even an innocent threat, than an innocent bystander. Finally, objections are raised and addressed.