1
David W. Croft
Cpt. Rhodes
Philosophy 310
14 November 1988
A Critical Analysis of Elizabeth Anscombe's "War and Murder"
The thesis of Anscombe's essay is that it is wrong for
the government to kill innocents as a means to killing non-
innocents. This is never directly stated in her work as she
leads up to it by making various assumptions and arguments
which are the bases of her final conclusion. I will list
these below so that we might examine the fundamental parts
of her arguments and judge whether the thesis is valid.
THE STRATEGY
There are a number of assumptions that Anscombe makes,
some of which she acknowledges and some we must derive from
her arguments. First, as Anscombe mentions, we must assume
(1) that the world is not just a jungle but a place where
the reasoning man can be assured that such noble concepts as
justice, evil, and good have a place. We assume (2) that
"evil" is something which should be stopped or prevented.
We assume (3) that "neutral" is something that is not evil
yet not the opposite of evil. We assume (4) that "non-
innocents" are those who commit evil. We assume (5) that
the Bible is the truth. All of these assumptions are
fundamental or promote the first of her arguments (a) that
2
some evil can only be stopped by violence, and ultimately,
killing. Her basis for this argument is that it is true
because history shows that often evil will not be stopped by
anything other than killing and that the Bible shows that
God limits the power of evil through violence (combined with
Biblical history supporting her first basis through the
stories of the Old Testament holy wars). An analysis of
each of the assumptions and arguments will follow the
complete outline of her thesis.
Anscombe argues (b) that the government of a people is
a competent judge of what is evil. Her basis is that
rational beings, of which the government is included, are
able to recognize evil.
She assumes (6) that the Principle of Double Effect, of
which I will discuss in detail, will not allow evil to be
committed as a means to achieving good, (7) that it is evil
to kill, and (8) that killing in self-defense is concomitant
with the good derived. From this, she argues (c) that
killing in self-defense is neutral. Her basis is that as
killing in self-defense is not the means to the good but
rather concomitant with the good, it passes the test of the
Principle of Double Effect.
This supports her argument (d) that private citizens
may only kill in self-defense. She is asserting that since
killing in self-defense is neutral, private citizens may
practice this act.
3
Because of this, (e) private citizens may not kill to
stop evil. As sometimes evil will not be directly aimed at
the private citizen, it is not his responsibility to kill
the non-innocents as it will not be a case of self-defense.
Anscombe assumes (9) that past history reveals that
killing non-innocents by the government is an integral part
of our society. Assuming (10) that the society of man is
geared toward that which is "good" (the opposite of evil),
she argues (f) that it is good for, indeed, one of the
primary purposes of, the government to kill non-innocents.
Her basis is that a good society could not allow anything
evil to be an integral part of it. Also, as the private
citizen may only kill in self-defense, this leaves only the
government to kill those who commit that which should be
stopped.
She assumes (11) that those humans not engaged in
committing the evil are "innocents" and (12) that "murder"
is the killing of those innocents without the justification
of the Principle of Double Effect. Thus, she argues (g)
that murder is evil as it fails the Principle.
From this, Anscombe argues (h) that it is evil for the
government to kill innocents as a means to killing non-
innocents as this would be murder. This is her thesis, and
as her thesis is based on the foregoing assumptions and
arguments, her thesis may be attacked by weakening or
destroying those foundations.
4
THE ASSUMPTIONS
I will start out critiquing her thesis by critiquing
the assumptions. For form, the following paragraphs will be
interspersed with numbers respective to the assumptions
discussed. The reader is advised to reference the
assumptions described above as he progresses through the
analysis as I will refrain from restating them below.
(1) This assumption obviously must be granted in order
to have an ethical theory. Otherwise, it is pointless to
critique such a work. (2) I perceived it to be important to
define the fundamental words that we use throughout this
analysis in order to be precise about we are discussing
before we start to "split hairs." Here, the definition of
"evil" is general and expansive enough to include those acts
which we think to be wrong but, as we are not the victims,
do not put us personally in a position of self-defense.
Thus, the government may combat those acts which occur in
faraway nations to strangers, with whom we share the common
link of humanity but no other obvious relation, justifiably
even though that government and its people are not being
molested or invaded. An example would be the outrage that
is occurring in many countries over South African Apartheid
even though the white South Africans might say that since
the policy is contained within the bounds of their country,
other nations have no right to interfere. (3) This is to
distinguish those acts which are not evil, yet a society
would not want to promote them over all other alternatives
5
as they are mixed with evil and thus to be used only when no
purely "good" act is effective. (4) "Non-innocent" is a
term used frequently throughout her thesis. (5) Even though
Anscombe is a devout Catholic, none of her arguments are
backed by faith alone. This enables even the atheist to
accept her work if he agrees with her morality. Whereas she
backs this particular argument with empirical evidence, she
will primarily use the Principle of Double Effect as the
secular element of her later bases.
The next set of assumptions are based on the Principle
of Double Effect so it will be necessary to do a critical
analysis of the Principle before we discuss whether her
subsequent assumptions are valid. One of the tests of the
Principle of Double Effect is that the good and the evil
effect which occur as a result of the action must be
concomitant. If the two effects (thus "Double Effect") are
not simultaneous, the action is perceived to have failed
this segment of the Principle and thus is to be considered
evil -- the evil must not be the means to a good.
If, for example, you decided to indulge yourself by
eating that last slice of pie, you could have reached your
decision to do so by two opposing rationales. One rationale
would be that, in light of the Principle of Double Effect,
doing so would be "good." The other rationale, which would
be considered "evil" by the Principle, would be to do so in
order to gain a long term benefit. In the former case, you
"intend" to enjoy the satisfaction of eating the pie, but
6
"forsee" the evil in gaining weight. As both effects are
concomitant, the intended effect is a direct result of
eating the pie; it passes that test of the Principle. It is
worth mentioning in passing that another test you would
weigh as part of the Principle of Double Effect is whether
or not the good effect significantly outweighs the resulting
evil. This test is the crux of another philosophy, Act-
Utilitarianism, where the main question you must consider
before every act is whether or not it will maximize the
"good" at the expense of the "evil." The second
possibility, which goes against the Priniciple of Double
Effect, is that you eat the pie in order to gain weight so
that you might eventually become so shocked with your state
of health you immediately enroll yourself in a rigorous
exercise program. While it is true that you may eventually
get in better shape than you were before you ate that slice
of pie, your intention is to gain weight (an evil) so that
you might net a loss of weight (an indirectly intended good)
which is using an evil as a means to an end result, the
good.
That example is ridiculous and obviously favors the
Principle. But consider these examples: you bomb Hiroshima
in order to save two countries from an additional ten years
of fighting and at least ten times the loss in lives; you
neuter an animal so that it cannot have offspring that would
eventually suffer the effects of overpopulation; you take a
philosophy class so that, through an indirect chain of
7
events, you might better defend the Constitution of the
United States; or you kill an animal which is diseased to
prevent its spread to others. It would seem, then, that the
Principle of Double Effect is invalid by virtue of common
sense. There is, however, a large body of thought which
continues to support the idea of the Principle of Double
Effect.
What if, twisting a previous example, that "diseased
animal" is a man with a threatening idea? From an Act-
Utilitarian standpoint, we may consider assassinating this
man in order to promote happiness in the long run. The
Constitution, however, based on more of a Rule-Utilitarian
standpoint, forbids us from the practice of assassination.
Also interesting, it is commonly known that that ICBM's of
the United States are likely to be launched according to a
doctrine which targets military installations, not
population centers, although the destruction of the cities
may or may not promote a lower casualty rate eventually by
defeating the enemy's will to fight or adding to the
deterrent value of our forces. Whether these decisions are
based on the Principle of Double Effect or not, we can see
why Anscombe's Catholic Church would support the Principle.
The spilling of blood was considered to be an evil
associated with war which all pure clergy were to avoid and
condemn. When it came to be realized that good could be
achieved through surgery, the Church had to redefine their
beliefs -- thus the Principle of Double Effect. One wonders
8
how the response of "It all works out in the end to the
greater glory of God" -- to the questions of those victims
of "acts of God" and other evils in a world where God reigns
supreme -- fits in with the Principle of Double Effect.
As I stated earlier, the Principle of Double Effect
would seem to be invalid by virtue of common sense. It
becomes obvious when given the above examples of the
diseased animal and Hiroshima, but even this does not prove
exactly why. In general, man strives for the greatest good
-- when faced with a personal decision between two acts of
which neither is purely beneficial, he will take the lesser
of two evils. It is possible, however, to bind his
reasoning process with an artificial constraint. We may
require that his daily decisions be based on some
superstitious beliefs derived from no logical context but a
"spiritual" one. Some examples might include that he should
not speak ill of the dead, should say something polite to
the person who has just sneezed such as "bless you" to the
point where it becomes redundant and irritating (originally
deriving from an African belief that a sneeze was the escape
of the soul from the body which must be coaxed to return
with soothing words), and that he should not commit acts
which fail the Principle of Double Effect even if they would
lessen the "evil" in the world.
This is the point: the criteria of the Principle that
the evil and good in the act be concomitant is arbitrary.
The overbearing criteria should be that the good in the act
9
outweighs the evil -- it does not matter whether the good
follows the evil, occurs at the same time as the evil, or
even precedes the evil, as long as it occurs. Although the
Principle of Double Effect may be popular, I would have to
criticize it as being wrong.
(6) Continuing our analysis of the assumptions, if we
agree with my conclusion about, as I call it, the Principle
of Ineffect, this assumption is invalid. Thus, it may be
possible to commit evil as means to achieving good so (7)
not all killing is evil. (8) It should be noted that she
specifically rules out deliberate, pre-planned killing such
as the use of poison or assassins in her definition of self-
defense -- the killing must be spontaneous to be
simultaneous.
(9) The only example which leaps to mind which disputes
this is the Amish. Their society is based on a theology
which forbids killing in all instances. However, they are
surrounded by a sympathetic society, the United States of
America, which uses killing to protect them from the more
flagrant evils. I think that her assumption is valid from a
practical standpoint. (10) If society were geared toward
"evil," she would not be writing a thesis on ethics.
(11) Many hold the theory that, in war, no one is
innocent. The proponents of this theory, however, seem to
have difficulty when describing just how the newborn infant
is guilty of deserving being on the receiving end of a
bayonet other than by association (a moral situation put to
10
me by an English instructor). Obviously the combatant is a
non-innocent and we might even consider the non-combatant
who steadily supplies and maintains the weapons of the
warriors throughout the conflict non-innocent. Stretching
it even further, we could even consider using food as a
weapon against the masses who are engaged in activities that
are completely unrelated to promoting the side of the non-
innocent warriors. Our logic would be that the war-fighting
machine would then have to divert its resources to feeding
and maintaining its people. Thus, the people are non-
innocent by guilt of omission -- their crime being not
actively pursuing the downfall of the government which takes
care of their needs. It then becomes our task to decide
just which definition of "innocent" we find most plausible,
varying from the reasonable to the ridiculous, and then try
to apply it to the multitudes of classes of people with
varying attitudes and contributions to their "non-innocent"
combatant forces.
Another option is to apply Utilitarianism. The
commander, when considering whether or not to kill a class
of people, should consider if the greatest good will be
achieved. For an example, he might ask himself, "Would the
good derived from the nuclear annihilation of several
million people among population centers with no combatant
forces, eventually leading to the end of the war, outweigh
the evil resulting from the act?" If the answer is yes, the
newborn infant has just become, through a less than obvious
11
chain of thought, a "non-innocent." An interesting aside
about utilitarianism is that it is not arbitrary -- that is,
the happiness of the babies of the other side come into play
just as much as that of the utilitarian commander's babies'.
Thus, Anscombe's assumption that non-combatants are
innocent may or may not be true according to the situation.
Even if you believe that babies should never be considered
"non-innocents," you would probably grant that the
ammunitions maker is a "non-innocent" even though he is a
non-combatant. This is one obvious example which shows the
need for a redefining of Anscombe's views on "innocence."
(12) Here I would alter the assumption by replacing "the
Principle of Double Effect" with "Utilitarianism" as the
majority of us would grant that there are humans which can
be considered innocent and killing which may be labeled
murder.
THE ARGUMENTS
I will now check to see if Anscombe's arguments flowed
logically from her assumptions and bases. As I have
dismissed some of the assumptions, I will examine whether or
not those assumptions were crucial to her arguments. Once I
find that an argument has had to be dismissed, I will check
to see if it has a significant impact on her thesis (once I
have sawed off a number of table legs, I will check to see
if the table still stands).
(a) As this argument is grounded in empirical evidence,
the argument is strong. Some might claim that all evils can
12
be stopped by non-violent means and that the use of force is
not necessary if one has a strong will. An example is
Gandhi's campaign of passive resistance which drove the
British out of India. However, if we analyze why the
British were driven out, we can see that passive resistance
would not be a successful tactic against all forms of evil.
The British were driven out because it became unprofitable
and unpopular for them to remain. By refusing to continue
to labor for the British, even when "encouraged" with the
British machine gun, the Indian people cut off the flow of
money to the British homeland -- for it was not the land
which was profitable, but the labor of the people. Finally,
as the strength of the will of the people became known to
the world, the British colonial venture collapsed.
Obviously, this "Indian" tactic was not too successful
in North America. In this case, the invading white
Americans were committing the evil of stealing the homeland
from the North American Indian. It was not the labor of the
people that they needed, nor did they concern themselves
with the impressive strength of will and moral virtue of the
Indian. Whereas, in the India of the East, the killing of
passive Indians by the British might have shocked the world,
in North America, Indian scalps were bringing in a tidy sum.
The difference is this: in the India of the East the
British tried to take something from the people which could
not be taken without their consent (which would be a case of
the defeat of the indomitable spirit); in North America, the
13
white Americans wanted the land. This is just one example
in an unfathomable number of examples of evil which could
not be stopped without the use of killing. For, as is
recorded in history, even those North American Indians who
pled their case to the "Great White Chief" in Washington, D.
C. and conformed completely to habits and ways of Western
civilization were doomed -- due to a deeply rooted belief
concerning their race held by the whites. Granted, your
free will may never be taken from you, but this may not be
the evil which is being perpetrated -- the non-innocent may
want your life. One wonders how "impressed" the German
machine gunner was with the Jews who laid themselves down
with silent dignity on top of the corpses of their own
people in a ditch. To sum it up, passive resistance will
not work against a rapist who is only concerned with your
physical body -- your lack of consent will not even
inconvenience him.
(b) Anscombe admits that a war may be fought for both
good and evil reasons so she is not naive or idealistic.
But, as evil does exist, it is possible to recognize it or
at least be justified in engaging war in the eyes of those
who also believe you to be fighting evil. The obvious case
is the self-defense against invasion. The argument, if not
at least correct, is already used by the governments.
(c) This conforms with the world-wide opinion on self-
defense. To say that self-defense is evil is to place
14
yourself among a minute minority (of which the Amish are an
example).
(d) The flaw in this argument is that although self-
defense is not evil she overlooks the possibility that other
types of killing may not be evil. She is saying that all
forms of killing are evil except in self-defense although
she has not bothered to test those other forms of defense by
the Principle of Double Effect. For instance, the United
Nations has mandated that it is the right of the people to
overthrow their government whenever it no longer exists to
serve them (civil war equates to killing).
Euthanasia is a prime example of Anscombe's failure to
test killings other than in self-defense by the Principle of
Double Effect. Here we have an evil which must be stopped
by the private citizen -- the tortured existence of the
human mind in a mutilated or spent body. If we apply the
the test of the Principle with which we are concerned, that
the evil and the good in the act be concomitant, we see that
the evil of taking a human life occurs simultaneously with
the good of relieving a human from pain. Obviously,
Anscombe has been too narrow on her outlook on killing by
private citizens.
The most commonly associated example of killing by
private citizens which is taboo is vigilantism. Although
vigilantism is commonly illegal, this is not due to the fact
that it is wrong for the private citizen to kill other than
in self-defense, but more to Rule-Utilitarianism or a
15
Hobbesian Social Contract Theory. Obviously, the system most
likely to fairly distribute justice is the judicial which is
established by the government. Because vigilantism is prone
either intentionally or accidentally to the frequent
miscarraige of justice, most societies have deemed it more
practical to discourage the practice. Looking at it from
the standpoint of the innocent victim of vigilantes, he has
been denied the right of protection from his fellow citizens
by the government, whereas he has kept his part of the
bargain by making himself vulnerable to attack.
(e) This argument is false as it is based on the
previous argument. However, if we grant that her previous
argument was right but on a false basis (the Principle of
Double Effect), the flaw may be considered a weak one.
(f) Since we have taken away her former argument,
government no longer becomes the only agent which can seek
to defeat evil in foreign lands as the private citizen may
kill to stop evil. However, Utilitarianism might consider
an organized effort to be more efficient than a swarm of
"volunteers" or vigilantes. Thus, this basis stands for the
same reasons that the previous two arguments stand. Her
first basis, however, was that since society has given the
government the exclusive right to kill evil in the past, it
must be right by empirical evidence and the fact that
society is not evil. This is a dangerous assertion as
society is not purely good. There may be some traditions
which allow it to survive, but prevent it from operating at
16
peak performance. She is practicing a form of Social
Ethical Relativism. By saying that since society allows
government to kill evil, and that society does what is good,
so therefore it is good for government to kill evil,
Anscombe puts herself in a logically indefensible position.
Following the same line of reasoning, she could enter a
society which practices a doctrine directly opposed to her
thesis, and say that their killing of innocents was good
because society, which is good, practices it. Her reasoning
is inconsistent. Again, if there are standards of justice,
good, and evil in the world, they must not be based on the
current practices of society. Finally, the use of empirical
evidence proves that something can exist because it has --
it cannot prove something cannot exist because it has not.
Although this argument falls because both of its bases
have been sawed off or at least weakened, it may still be
true. History shows that it is commonly the government that
fights non-innocents -- probably practical utility is the
basis which she did not consider.
(g) Granted; this definition is necessary as a basis
for her next argument. Even without the use of the
Principle of Double Effect, this is true as we grant that
there is such a thing as justice and evil.
(h) This argument falls as it is based primarily on the
Principle of Double Effect. Even though we grant that
murder is evil, we do not grant that the government may not
use murder as an indirect means to achieve a good -- a
17
tactic forbidden only by the Principle. She describes no
other theory or philosophy which would act as a secondary
basis for her argument and I personally cannot think of one.
So by invalidating the Principle, we make her thesis that it
is always wrong for the government to kill innocents as a
means to killing non-innocents conditional, and thus useless
as a consistent philosophy.