Comment Paper 5: The Moral Justification for Defensive Targeted Killings

This week’s readings discussed the Just War Theory and the argument for the morality of targeted killings. In chapter 10, “Defending Defensive Targeted Killings,” Phillip Montague argues that ordinary moral principles of self-defense commonly restricted to individually aggressive actions can also be applied to jointly aggressive actions. Targeted killings can be used to apply the jointly aggressive actions that are used against terrorists for national self-defense. I agree with Montague’s argument that it is “morally permissible defensive homicide” (Montague 294) to kill a terrorist if there is no other way of preventing the individual from killing others. It is the responsibility of the U.S. military to protect U.S. citizens from harm. This use of targeting killing against terrorists is merely a preemptive joint defensive action to prevent an event such as 9/11 from ever occurring again. As discussed by Montague, the only instance in which I would disagree with targeted killing and consider it to be morally impermissible is when it results in the death of innocent civilians living in other countries that are inhabited by terrorists. Unfortunately, innocent civilians in countries such as Pakistan are dying every day from the use of drones to target terrorists. In order to justify the use of drones for targeted killing improvements must be made with their accuracy of only killing the individuals involved with terrorism.

Critics of targeted killing believe that “ordinary moral principles permit homicide only when necessary to prevent the loss of life or comparably serious harms” (Montague 285).  These critics argue that the justification for killing should only apply to conflicts between the military forces of political communities. In my opinion, there is moral justification for the targeted killing of terrorists. Even though these individuals are not connected to a particular nation of people, they are a force that must be controlled. At the present time, targeted killing through the use of drones is the United States’ best weapon against terrorists. It is this technology that allowed the U.S. military to kill the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden without the loss of many other lives. While it is not guaranteed that Osama Bin Laden would have initiated another terrorist attack as disastrous to the United States as the attack of 9/11, the use of targeted killing was able to eliminate the possibility of his future actions. As long as the focus of targeted killing is placed on terrorists, and the death of civilians is avoided at all costs, I would consider defensive targeted killings against terrorists to be a morally permissible action for the United States.