Many European pundits, along with several in the United Nations and a minority of Americans, believe in the moral equivalence of Hezbollah and Israel in the recent conflict. Both sides are killing innocent people, both are bombing apartment complexes, hospitals and schools, Israel is destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure and Hezbollah is trying to do the same to Israel, and both sides are politically recognized entities that have crossed internationally-acknowledged borders. Hezbollah started the aggression, but Israel has overacted. Recently, I heard this exact argument advanced by a liberal British journalist on Hannity and Comes.
Now there are clear ways in which the two are not, in fact, morally equivalent and pundits often avoid mentioning these: Israel has nukes it has refrained from using and if Hezbollah had one, it would be deployed quicker than an atom of uranium can decay into lead. Israel drops leaflets to warn civilians, Hezbollah does not. Israel takes responsibility and apologizes for mistakes and investigates them, Hezbollah does not. Israel’s fighters wear uniforms, Hezbollah’s dress as civilians and hide among them. Israel follows International Law, Hezbollah does not. These contrasts are sufficient to demonstrate how biased many news sources are when they represent the conflict in morally equivalent ways. However, themselves, they do not adequately address the heart of the equivalence class cited above. For that we must turn elsewhere.
Fortunately, for centuries moral and political theologians and philosophers have used what is called the Law of Double-effect. The law apples to moral actions that bring about good and evil consequences and it provides guidance as to when such actions are morally justified. It also makes clear that in morally assessing an action, the results are not the most important factor. Rather, the agent’s intentions, his/her avoiding the use of an evil means to accomplish a good result, and the proportionality of the good and evil consequences of the act.
Here’s the Law of Double-Effect: An act is good even if it produces an evil result provided that (1) one directly intends only the good end; (2) one does not achieve the good end by evil means; (3) the bad end, even if foreseen, is not intended or desired and is merely tolerated; (4) there is a proportion between the good and evil results. If you know that putting a swing-set in our back yard will result in happiness for your children and distress for your neighbors the act is good provided that (1) you only intend to make your children happy; (2) you don’t make them happy by means of distressing your neighbors; (3) your neighbor’s distress is foreseen but is merely tolerated; (4) your children’s happiness is proportional to your neighbor’s distress, e.g., the distress does not kill them by producing a heart attack.
You may give a dying patient morphine even if it will shorten his/her life if you merely intend pain relief, that relief does not come by killing the patient, the shortened life is merely tolerated, and pain relief is worth the slightly shorter life of the patient.
By way of application Israel does not intend to kill innocent people or to destroy civilian structures, but Hezbollah does. Israel is not attempting to thwart Hezbollah by means of killing innocent civilians or destroying civilian structures, but Hezbollah is. Israel foresees that innocents will be killed and civilian structures destroyed but it merely tolerates these results as evidenced by their attempt to minimize them, and they in no way desire or intend them the same cannot be said for Hezbollah. If Israel’s actions are the response merely of a few soldiers being killed and two being kidnapped on Jewish soil then their response is disproportionate. But Israel’s actions are a response to terror threats, hundreds upon hundreds of missile attacks, and the need to clean out Hezbollah to provide a buffer zone and protection. Thus, Israel is not over-reacting. The Law of Double Effect clearly shows that there is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hezbollah. Media who proclaim otherwise are morally confused and deeply irresponsible.
