Donald Trump

The Donald Trumps Morality

Say what you want about Donald Trump: he may be a demagogic moral midget and the possibility that he might become the GOP nominee for President may be alarming and depressing. But at least his rantings offer an occasion to provide moral clarity in a terrorist age.

Here he is dealing with ISIS:

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families!”

Now, there’s a few minor points that might be considered before embracing Trump’s position: the Christian just war tradition (in this case jus in bello), the Laws of War (or International Humanitarian Law as it is called nowadays) and American military Rules of Engagement (ROE) all prohibit the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants [a good example of the extent to which the US attempts to limit harm to noncombatants can be found here]. Attacking noncombatants is unjust, immoral, and a clear violation of the laws of war to directly and intentionally attack a terrorist’s child or any other member of his family. Even apart from whether or not such a tactic will be successful in a military campaign against ISIS (which is unlikely since these tactics almost always generate sympathy to the weaker party of an asymmetric conflict), it is simply unlawful and immoral for a combatant to deliberately target noncombatants as a means to get to a legitimate target (e.g, an ISIS “combatant”). In fact, to target that child as a means to get at the terrorist is itself an act of terrorism.

Unfortunately, Trump’s bombastic statement, “you have to take out their families” gains plausibility among Americans who are primed to overreact against a widespread popular distortion of the requirements of the jus in bello. That popular misunderstanding considers any “collateral damage” resulting from a direct and intentional attack on a legitimate terrorist target to be unjust and immoral. This view, popular among theological and secular pacifists, both principled (e.g. the pacifism of the Evangelical peace churches) and functional (e.g., those who will deny being pacifists in theory but never support military force in practice), too often recognize no moral difference between the direct and intentional targeting of a terrorist’s child as a means to get at the terrorist and the unintentional (even though perhaps foreseen) death of innocents as a result of directly attacking the terrorist. Ironically, both the Trumpkins and the pacifists fail to make the requisite moral distinctions. For the former it leads to killing the families of terrorists as a means to get to the terrorists, for the latter it means avoiding attacking terrorists altogether. But the distinction that both fail to make is fundamental not only to the Christian just war tradition but also to the Laws of War and American ROEs.

The Christian just war tradition’s prohibition on the direct and intentional harm of noncombatants and the permissibility of unintended innocent harm to noncombatants, are both predicated on a commitment to protect noncombatants in a time of war (or “armed conflict”). While this commitment to civilian protection is obvious with regard to the prohibition on the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants (e.g., the terrorist’s family) it is perhaps less obvious with regard to the permissibility of “collateral damage”, or the moral permissibility of unintended (even though foreseen) harm to noncombatants in the conduct of war.

Here’s why. If, per the view of so many of our contemporary pacifists, the moral and legal requirement were zero noncombatant casualties, then it would most certainly provide an incentive for an unscrupulous combatant to employ hostage shield tactics (e.g., placing forces in close proximity to schools, hospitals etc.) in order to render his forces immune from attack. That’s why this kind of activity is a war crime. In conventional warfare, the fact that this is a war crime along with the permissibility of unintended civilian casualties provides a disincentive for combatants to rely on hostage shield tactics. In fact, the law recognizes that when a combatant employs such hostage shield tactics the moral and legal responsibility for harm to noncombatants shifts to the combatant who employed such hostage shield tactics in the first place. The responsibility for any harm to noncombatants shifts to the combatant responsible for placing noncombatants in harm’s way, so long as the attacker is directly and intentionally targeting the combatant and that the harm to noncombatants is not intended and is not used as a means to get at the otherwise legitimate target.

The same principle applies to unconventional warfare and in the fight against international terrorist organizations such as ISIS. Contrary to Trump, it would be unjust and immoral for the U.S. to directly attack the families of ISIS terrorists as a means to get to the terrorists. Contrary to principled and functional pacifists it would be unjust and immoral to prohibit all casualties to ISIS families and to allow ISIS terrorists to be immune from attack by using their families as hostage shields. Should harm come to the families of ISIS terrorists as part of a just campaign against ISIS–a campaign in which we only directly and intentionally target the terrorists themselves–then the moral and legal fault for that harm rests entirely with ISIS.

Such things are important to grasp for anyone aspiring to our nation’s highest office. Trump’s tough-mindedness might appreciably distinguish him from the current occupant of the White House, but one would hope, at the very least, his morality would equally distinguish him from our enemies.


Keith Pavlischek, contributing editor, is a military affairs expert with a focus on just war theory and the ethics of war. He retired as a colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps in 2007 after thirty years of active and reserve service having served in Desert Storm, Bosnia, Iraq, with the U.S. Central Command, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He is the author of John Courtney Murray and the Dilemma of Religious Toleration (1994) and numerous articles, including a chapter on the ethics of asymmetric warfare in the Ashgate Research Companion to Military Ethics (2015).


photo credit: Gage Skidmore, Wikipedia Commons

Enjoyed the article? Keep Providence going!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Matt Gobush

    Although unintentional harm to non-combatants in a just war is morally permissible consistent with Aquinas’ doctrine of double effect, this fact does not absolve Trump of clearly failing to meet the ad bellum requirement of right intention. Waging just war is a matter of the heart and the head – and the GOP frontrunner appears to lack both.

    • Arnold F Williams

      While you are using impressive phrases, you give me no reason to assume that you would agree that any GOP president may wage war.

  • Pingback: Trumping Trump’s Morality |

  • Aliquantillus

    Humanitarian warfare is an outdated concept in conflicts such as with ISIS and other Islamist terror organizations. The only effective thing here is complete extermination. I’m not a supporter of Trump but in this he is right. You have to deliberately kill all the family members of terrorists and possibly all inhabitants of the Islamic State and similar entities.

    The modern warfare method of the West is based on the concept of technological superiority. But yet this warfare is highly ineffective. War is mainly about wiping out your enemy and making a big spectacle of it. Technical victory alone doesn’t guarantee that. It doesn’t create much fear. In order to guarantee a victory you must not only show that you can win technically. You must have the whole world fear you because of what you did and can do. Not only your actual enemy but also all the potential ones — and be assured that there are always a lot of potential enemies — must be utterly morally devastated and shaken. Only then you can do with them what you want, which is exactly the purpose of all war.

    Humanitarian warfare only helps your enemy, not the innocent victims you are trying to protect. It causes endless and unnecessary suffering because you don’t exercise your full force but use “proportional” violence. Proportional violence, however, is a deluding concept. It only lenghtens the conflict. If you have to use violence, the rational way to act is to use as much of it as is possible. This has the effects of quickly terminating the conflict, guaranteeing your victory, and instilling fear in your enemies and all others who want to profit from the situation.

  • Matt Gobush

    I could not disagree more with Aliquantilus – and shudder at the prospect of a president who might espouse his views. President Lincoln – the founder of the party Trump now seeks to lead and no mean commander-in-chief himself – said it best in his second inaugural: “With malice towards none, charity towards all.” Even in this fight against an uncivilized foe, such compassion and magnanimity must be our nation’s watchwords.

  • Arnold F Williams

    Why do you assume their family is noncombatants? Women and children have shot people, blown up other targets, made bombs. And no one assumes that terrorists wear uniforms to identify themselves any more, do they?

  • Pingback: Why Conservative Christians Are Concerned About Trump’s Proposed Muslim Ban |

  • Pingback: Why Conservative Christians Are Concerned About Trump’s Proposed Muslim Ban | Walker Ministries | Virginia Beach, VA()

  • Pingback: Why Conservative Christians Are Concerned About Trump’s Proposed Muslim Ban - Business Recorders USA()

  • Seanmar

    We know that Trump prefers veterans to undocumented aliens, but the same cannot be said about all Republican candidates.