Is Assassination Ever Justifiable?

Over 20 years ago while at graduate school, the above question was proposed as part of an Ethics course. As I remember, there were nine of us in the program, and interestingly, there was a split in the determination, reached after much research, analysis and determination. What was particularly interesting was how people conceived of ethics vs morality.

A definition of the two terms is;

Ethics are distinct from morals in that they’re much more practical. A moral precept is an idea or opinion that’s driven by a desire to be good. An ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behavior. An ethical code doesn’t have to be moral.

Much has been written in response to this question, and dependent on where one stands at the precise moment of decision, different outcomes can be rationalized, and be justified. Depending on whether such as act is taken by an individual, authorized group, or sanctioned by the leader of a country, — people, it seems, are comfortable with different outcomes.

In 2022, Lindsay Graham, a well-known American Senator from South Carolina, explicitly called for the assassination of President Vladimir Putin.

I am not naive. America has assassinated hundreds of foreign statesman, diplomats and political figures. The question still stands, is assassination ever justified?

Back in 2022, when Graham made the above statement on the social media platform X’, he was “hastily criticized across the political spectrum in the United States and elsewhere yet Graham’s plea reflects a wider public perception that targeted killing can sometimes be justified.” (Joe Humphrey, The Irish Times, June 02, 2022).

We often confuse what is moral with what is ethical. If nation states can justify assassination, and do, why is it that individuals are not provided with the same rationale when they, fearing the tyrannical acts of a malicious and sociopathic individual, then make the same distinction, and assassinate a public figure?

Graham suggests that utilitarianism as a philosophical position is most likely to endorse assassination, stating, “If taking one saves many then fire ahead, so to speak.” Utilitarianism is defined as,

“Utilitarianism”

In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals. In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is, in some sense, to maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts.

What I find interesting, is how, for many Christians (although I am an atheist) they can accept moral constraints, yet be completely comfortable with immorality and unethical behaviour.

Christian implies a set of beliefs, behaviours and constraints, yet depending upon circumstance, Christians regularly exempt themselves from their actions. Why? Is morality actually irrelevant? I would suggest that it is, as so called Christians, and in fact all religions seemingly ‘allow’ acts that are deliberately designed to cause harm, even death.

I have asked these same questions of students, as I taught Ethics as part of a Management program at college for ten years. The answers are no clearer when one contrasts ‘ethics with legality’. Ultimately, it seems to be both situational, and time contingent.

The Canadian Constitutional Law states;

Defence of mental disorder

• 16 (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

• Marginal note: Presumption

• (2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

• Marginal note:Burden of proof

• (3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issues.

One has to ask, why should a Prime Minister or President not be held legally responsible for actions that are indeed illegal, unethical and immoral, and where the law states (as above), that such actions are not protected or legal?

While the answers seem to depend on where one sits, or stands at the time ‘the’ decision is made, I suppose I fall into the utilitarian philosophical group, as I believe that eliminating a man who will do irreparable damage to others, personally, societally, nationally and/or globally is not only justifiable, but a rational decision. Yet, were I to act to do so, I would be criminally charged and imprisoned, or executed, depending on the jurisdiction? Why is it then apparently legal for a government to assassinate a foreign dignitary, political or military figure?

How is it that nations can excuse a man who is responsible for the deaths of more than 47,000 people, many, many of whom are innocents?

Is my personal decision and conclusion any more irrational than that of the Secretary of Defence, or the President of a nation? Is his or her decision rational? Is her or his decision to do so reasonable? And is so, why is it apparently legal?

Why is it that holding the highest office in the land, changes the equation or the consideration?

I ask this, not entirely rhetorically, for I believe there are many people who are asking the same question today, and many more who will ask the same question, in time.