Nagel War And Massacre Summary

Throughout Nagel’s paper, “War and Massacre”, the reader is shown the distinction between acceptable action’s during conflict as according to an absolutist theory versus an utilitarian theory. Such examples include how one could attack his/her opponent during the course of a political campaign (135), and what actions a soldier is allowed to take when under attack from an enemy (138). The main point in both cases is that the actions must take aim specifically at the issue itself; nothing in the peripherals, such as the candidate’s alcoholic wife (135), or the enemy’s wife and children are acceptable targets (138). However, it is after consideration of these situations and numerous others, along with further clarification of what is and is not

Furthermore, the lack of adherence to absolutist theory opens the door to a following of utilitarian theory in which any act can be committed, as long as it can be justified by the benefits outweighing the costs. It is from this that Nagel draws the conclusion that the world may be evil. By not sticking to absolutist theory, and even considering acts that violate it, there exist very few limitations and therefore the world becomes a very frightening and possibly evil place during times of

I will now present a counterargument to this conclusion. One may suggest that Nagel’s argument hinges on the idea that the world should stick to an absolutist approach to conflict resolution, and is therefore easily dismantled when it becomes clear that the world does not stick to an absolutist methodology. From this, the person may argue that since an absolutist theory is not applied, Nagel has no grounds to propose that the world is an evil place when his supporting evidence is based on the idea that an absolutist theory should be followed during conflicts. To this argument I present the following reasoning. Yes, Nagel’s conclusion that the world may be an evil place is based on his previous assertions concerning the absolutist theory of actions during conflicts. However, the lack of the world following Nagel’s version of absolutist theory only further supports his conclusion because unless the world follows the theory, violations of it may occur which, although justified according to utilitarian theory, are violations nonetheless. Take a board game for instance; just because the players decide to ignore the rules of the game, it does not mean that the rules don’t exist, and that the players are not breaking the rules. The players will still be considered to be playing a game, which breaks the rules and is therefore wrong. When the world