Thomas Nagel totally rejects the principle that there are circumstances that would allow the deliberate killing of noncombatants. Consequentialist reasoning may permit the killing of civilians, but this end justifies the means reasoning is morally unacceptable to Nagel. In his essay, ôWar and Massacre,ö he argues that killing noncombatants in war is never justifiable, even if it means that the war may end quicker, thereby saving more lives. He writes, öthere are limits on what may be done even in the service of an end worth pursuingö (54). Even if the gains of an action outweigh its costs, the deliberate killing of noncombatants is never justified. Nagel elaborates on the problem of means and ends by discussing the difference between two opposing categories of moral reason, the utilitarian and the absolutist approach.
Nagel proves himself an absolutist in his firm stand that there are no circumstances under which noncombatants should be killed. He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between combatants (soldiers) and noncombatants (children, women who bear children or offer comfort to soldiers, supporting personnel such as drivers, cooks, etc.) on ôthe basis of their immediate threat or harmfulnessö (70). Support personnel actions are peripheral according to Nagel and therefore not directly the cause of danger. He offers the example of medical personnel and the wounded in Vietnam, stating that although it may be more efficient to shoot medical officers and let the enemy wounded die, this would not be an acceptable action because medical attention ôis a species of attention to completely general human needs, not specifically the needs of a combat soldierö (71). The concept that during war ôour conflict with the soldier is not with his existence as a human beingö may be extended, Nagel states, to prohibit cruel weapons, starvation, and other tactics because such weapons attack the men, not the soldiers (71).
Na...