Everyday Ethics

Most people agree, for a variety of reasons, that there is something wrong with killing another person.  There are clear cases where killing is deemed acceptable, such as wartime, but this is not because killing is not bad in those cases.  To claim that killing is sometimes acceptable is just to claim that sometimes the wrongness of killing is outweighed by other considerations.  This does not negate the intrinsic wrongness of killing that most people find plausible.  Whether certain cases of killing are morally acceptable depends on the reasons one has for thinking this is the case.

With this in mind, we turn to recent current events involving pirate activity off the coast of Somalia.  For some time now, Somalia has been in a state of civil unrest, with even the most basic needs of its people not being met, and with few opportunities for improving one’s life.  Some individuals, the argument goes, are turning to piracy because they have no other means of supporting themselves.  The need to survive has driven some Somalis to take extreme action, capturing ships and holding them for ransom in the hope of improving their own dire life circumstances.

We will set aside whether or not survival is a good reason to engage in piracy.  Our question concerns the recent decision by the United States to use snipers to kill several pirates holding a U.S. citizen hostage.  The order was given by President Obama to kill the pirates if the commanders on the ground deemed it necessary.  They did, and the pirates were shot by snipers, leaving the hostages unharmed and allowing for their return to the United States.

There are several potential responses to this incident.  One is to argue that engaging in piracy negates a person’s right not to be killed by others.  This is the same type of argument one might give to justify executing criminals.  The idea is essentially that although it is prima facie wrong to kill another person, this can be negated by certain types of negative actions, such as piracy or murder.

Another reply is that although killing these pirates was wrong, it was preferable to either allowing them to kill their hostages or paying them the requested ransom.  This is a consequentialist argument, in that the central point of each claim concerns an appeal to the better consequences of killing the pirates.  On this line of reasoning, although it was wrong to kill the pirates, this was the best available option.  The decision to kill the pirates was a choice between better and worse, rather than right or wrong.

A third, somewhat different reply might be that killing is always wrong, and that this is no exception.  This is a Kantian type of argument, whereby what matters is not what consequences prevail, but what we, as individuals, do.  Killing someone is the wrong thing for me to do, whether or not it would produce good consequences.

A fourth reply, which I personally favor, is the claim that the wrongness of killing is simply being outweighed by other considerations.  I am quite comfortable saying that it is always wrong to kill, and that we need compelling reasons for why we sometimes ought to kill despite the wrongness of this action.  On this view, killing pirates is wrong, but the rightness of protecting the innocent and creating a deterrent to future piracy outweighs the wrongness of killing in this particular case.  This view allows us to maintain that it was wrong to kill the pirates, while also claiming that in this particular case, it was the right thing to do.

Although I have advocated a particular position here, it is not my primary intention to do so.  What is really worth stressing, regardless of what view one takes of this incident, is that there are many reasons that might be relevant to whether a certain action is wrong in a given case.  Further, by thinking about everyday instances of controversial actions with moral significance, such as the killing of hostage-holding pirates, we can better develop our ability to recognize what sorts of reasons make a difference.  This way, when the time comes to make a difficult moral judgment, we are better trained to do so.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.