Drone killings, libertarianism, and utilitarianism: the question of justice

Drone Killings, Libertarianism, and Utilitarianism: The Question of Justice

Libertarians and Utilitarians would likely judge the death of Abdurahman in the same: Libertarians believe in the rights protected by the Constitution and therefore in Abdurahman's rights as a U.S. citizen. For a Libertarian, justice is the exercise of the rule of law as stipulate in the Constitution. They believe this is right because the law is founded on respect for individual freedom and is meant to keep abuses against this right in check. They believe this is a civilized and respectful way of organizing society. Utilitarians believe as John Stuart Mill professed that governments should only act in a forcible manner if the action does not inflict harm on another or if the action is for the common good: it would be difficult to argue that the death of Abdurahman was supported in either instance without a trial. Utilitarians view justice in a practical perspective -- that is, if it is practical in terms of effecting the common good, then it is good overall. "Justice" that undermines the common good is not utilitarian or good. Therefore, libertarians and utilitarians should see eye to eye on this instance because both fundamentally embrace the concept of the common good as rooted in individual liberty and respect.

Both perspectives are persuasive for their own reasons. Libertarianism is persuasive from a rule of law and natural right point-of-view. Utilitarianism is persuasive from a common good/respect for your neighbor point-of-view. Both may be flawed in some respect: for instance, libertarianism's basis of belief is rooted in liberty and the belief that everyone should be free to decide how to live within the structure of a law-abiding society that does not oppress or hinder one's natural rights. However, this belief may be idealistic in the sense that there is, historically speaking, a conflict of interest between groups of ideology who seek power, and absolute freedom can lead to infringement at some point. Libertarianism can lead to totalitarianism, which is where utilitarianism steps in to suggest that liberty is good but it must not undermine the common good. Nonetheless, libertarianism is compelling because it at least supports the idea that a rule of law (the Constitution) should be followed or else society breaks down. Obama's assertion that there is a "legal justification" to kill teenagers, American citizens, or really anyone at all suspected of being affiliated with an enemy is absurd on the face of it (Siddiqui, 2013). There is no "legal justification" -- that is why activists call it murder: determining legal justification is what a courtroom is for. Drone kills are supra-jurisdictional: that is, they are "above" the law. To this both libertarians and utilitarians would object because both agree on the fundamental importance of respecting individual rights and the relationship between the common good and the rule of law. However, determining the common good can lead to subversion, as in the case with drone strikes -- which the Pentagon would argue is for the common good, though this is a very subjective assessment and one that could definitely be argued, as Jeremy Scahill does in his reproach of the Pentagon for its killing of the teenaged Awlaki (Democracy Now!, 2013).