The Virtue of Self-defense

With the recent tragedy on September 11, 2001, there has been much doubt cast upon prominent Objectivists. The doubt is concerning the "innocent" casualties of war. Leonard Peikoff has come out in strong support of using full military force without walking on eggshells for civilian casualties. Some say this is totally erroneous as "Objectivism is about absolutes. It applies its principles consistently. Objectivism rejects killing innocents therefore, in war-time, it must still apply."

These bleeding hearts questioning Peikoff are dead wrong. Objectivism does advocate absolutes, but they are the absolutes of reality. The killing of innocents being immoral is not such an absolute. The prominent Objectivists advocating the disregard of potential innocents in war are advocating the correct Objectivist opinion.

The "rejection of the initiation of force," i.e. the rejection of the killing of innocents, is not an absolute nor a self-evident truth. "A is A" is a self-evident truth; freedom is not. Freedom is causal, not axiomatic. Freedom rests on an "If" statement. "If ___ man is to survive, then ____ he must have freedom."

This statement, without hesitation, always applies under normal, peaceful circumstances. This conclusion, that man has a right to his mind and body, is called rational self-interest. Freedom is the usual conclusion made based on the virtue of selfishness, i.e. man's right to live and pursue his own life.

However, in war time, the conditions under which man must live change. The "If, then" statement during war-time changes to "If ___ man is to survive, then ___ he must eradicate all threats to his life." Because man is now under a threat, as he is in war, the virtue of selfishness now dictates that he is the uninhibited right to self-defense. Anyone who has a shred of desire to live will, when faced with a threat, go to battle with whoever is threatening his life and anyone who gets in his way.

The virtue of self-defense always applies when someone has you under a threat. While a person has you under a threat, as they do in war-time, you have full moral right to do whatever you have to in order to rid yourself of your aggressor

If a thug has a gun to your head and says, "Kill this person or I kill you,” you have full right to kill who you must to save yourself. The thug left you two options: life or death. Objectivism advocates that you be allowed to choose life. The thug is responsible, not you.

When America was attacked on 9-11, that gave her full moral right to do whatever she had to to save *America*. America's goal, right now, is to win the war. Whatever innocents get killed are the terrorist fault not America’s. Indeed, if one really wanted to minimize the "innocent casualties," one would allow America to go in, full force, and make for as quick and bloodless of a battle possible.

However, actions are not without consequences and those should be thought of. Indeed, if one were to kill enough innocent civilians, it is conceivable that they would rebel and attack America. This should be taken into consideration. However, those bleating about the “innocent civilians” are not really interested in saving innocent civilians anyway. They are anti-war and they will point to any and all grisly parts of war in an attempt to stop it.

This, the position of uninhibited self-defense, is the proper position of Objectivism. It is the proper response that is hinged upon advocating America's self-interest. Any position other than this regarding war is distinctly self-crippling. It would be a moral abomination to advocate any other position than one of unfettered self-defense. America's soldiers, who are so bravely fighting for our freedom, must know that they have full right to go in and do what they need to do. Telling them they must avoid innocents, send aid to people, stop fighting on holidays, or anything else, basically sends them into a war zone with their left legs cut off. Our soldiers and military officials need to know that America is fully behind them and will support whatever they have to do to win the war and minimize as few of our casualties as possible.

The rejection of the initiation of force is not a primary. It is not an absolute law of reality. Freedom is conditional. It applies in peace time. In war time, however, different measures are needed for man's survival. The virtue of selfishness still applies, but its conclusions differ. Rational self-interest is no longer the conclusion; self-defense is.

Any person or country with a shred of self-esteem will do whatever they have to to save themselves in threatening situations. America should not have to self-cripple herself to save the people of another country. America has full moral right to think of America.

Amber Pawlik

November 2, 2001

"Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life." -- Ayn Rand Ford Hall Forum 1972: "A Nation's Unity"