The article argues that in wartime dilemmas engineered by an aggressor (e.g., using human shields), moral judgment should rest on who created the situation, not just on minimizing immediate casualties. It frames a duty to act against the aggressor even if doing so causes tragic collateral harm, assigning culpability to the initiator of violence.
— This reframes war ethics debates by shifting evaluation from casualty tallies to responsibility for creating no‑win choices, affecting how publics and policymakers assess proportionality and restraint.
Arnold Kling
2025.10.08
78% relevant
The author argues Hamas deliberately embeds among civilians and seeks civilian deaths, placing moral responsibility on the aggressor who created the no‑win situation and endorsing a Churchillian policy of uncompromising war—echoing the 'responsibility, not casualty tallies' frame.
Scott
2025.08.28
100% relevant
Aaronson’s trolley‑problem parable: a murderer ties his own five children to the tracks while holding your child hostage, with the town shaming you for pulling the lever.
Scott
2025.06.22
50% relevant
Aaronson’s argument places moral weight on the aggressor’s choices (executions for apostasy, missile attacks on civilians) when judging U.S. action against Iran, aligning with the frame that culpability should rest with those who create no‑win dilemmas rather than on casualty tallies alone.