Supporting the Troops and/or Opposing the War:

The Moral Obligations of Citizens in an Immoral War

Camillo C. Bica

Most would concur that criticism and dissent are an appropriate response, if not a moral and civic duty, during the prelude to a war perceived as immoral. Once the hostilities begin, however, and our soldiers placed in harm’s way, patriotic fervor and concern for the troops raises serious pragmatic and moral questions regarding the appropriateness and wisdom of opposing even an immoral war in which we are engaged. Debate increases and antagonism intensifies between those who oppose and publicly protest immoral war and those who see criticism and dissent as unpatriotic, even treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops. In this essay, I will argue from the principle of respect for persons that moral agents are proscriptively obligated neither to participate in an immoral war (the duty of non participation), nor to assist those who prosecute it to accomplish their mission, what I will term “supporting the troops qua warrior” (the duty of non complicity). Further, I will argue that moral agents are also prescriptively obligated to oppose, speak out against, and to condemn immoral war (the duty to dissent); and that this obligation is compatible with and requires that the troops be supported in another more meaningful sense, what I will term “supporting the troops qua human being” (the duty to assist). Finally, these obligations continue beyond the prelude to war stage and become even more stringent once the fighting has begun.

Forthcoming in Spring 2007 edition of the Journal of Social Philosophy. Sorry, complete paper removed due to copyright agreement with Blackwell Publishers.