Israel’s Claim to Having the Most Moral Army Does Not Stand Up to Moral Scrutiny

Aside from the inherent subjectivity and potential bias in self-declared moral superiority, there are also very sound philosophical grounds for rejecting any such claim.

[Note: Since writing, the number of Palestinian civilians massacred during the freeing of 4 Israeli captives rose from 100 to 274. Sadly, this makes the arguments below even more pertinent and robust.]

I formulated the following reductio ad absurdum and asked ChatGPT to assess it for logical consistency. Below is an edited version of the interaction. The full, unedited dialogue with ChatGPT is here.

Recently 4 Israelis being held by Hamas were freed by the Israeli army. This came with the loss of more than 100 Palestinian civilians, and injury of hundreds more. Based on this, the following reductio ad absurdum can be formulated:

1. Israel is the most moral army in the world
2. Morality consists in avoiding or minimising harm, including death and injury
3. A moral army would seek to minimise deaths and injuries (From 2)
4. The identity of those spared death and injury is irrelevant to moral considerations
5. Therefore Israel is neither the most, nor a moral army.

ChatGPT assessed the reductio and responded:

"If we accept all premises as true, the conclusion logically follows that Israel, by causing significant harm to Palestinian civilians in the process of freeing its own hostages, cannot be considered the most moral army according to the principles stated. This is because causing over 100 civilian deaths and numerous injuries contradicts the notion of minimizing harm, thereby challenging the initial claim of being the most moral army.

The reductio ad absurdum argument effectively shows a contradiction between the claim of being the most moral army and the observed actions that resulted in significant harm. Therefore, the argument is logically consistent, provided the premises are accepted as true."

However, it did note a caveat in that “the argument’s logical consistency hinges on the acceptance of the premises. (See the full dialogue with ChatGPT here).

So then I asked it to examine the premises in which moral claims are made (specifically 2 and 4) through the lens of prevailing moral theories. Premises 1 and 3 do not require such scrutiny, since 1 is a subjective claim by Israel, and 3 follows from 2, which is under scrutiny anyway.

I asked:
With reference to the most widely agreed upon moral theories, assess if the central premises (2 and 4) stand up to scrutiny when examined through these moral theories.

It examined the central premises “through the lens of the most widely agreed upon moral theories: utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and relativism”, and concluded:

Overall, while both premises find significant support in major moral theories, Premise 4 is less universally accepted due to the moral relevance of relationships and specific contexts.

Essentially, it noted that most if not all moral theories do “recognize the moral relevance of relationships and context, which may challenge the idea that the identity of those spared is completely irrelevant” (thus undermining premise 4).

ChatGPT has a point, and though it may have been a worthwhile exercise to try and defend the reductio further, it seemed easier to ask it to come up with a better one, with more robust premises. And so it did.

It first refined the premises so they “hold up more strongly under scrutiny from various moral theories,” and then examined them through the lens of each.

Improved Reductio:

1. Premise 1: Israel claims to be the most moral army in the world.
2. Premise 2: A key aspect of morality involves avoiding or minimizing harm, including death and injury, to innocents.
3. Premise 3: A moral army, therefore, would aim to minimize harm to all civilians, including both their own and the enemy’s civilians, as much as possible (From 2).
4. Premise 4: The identity of those spared death and injury should be considered secondary to the moral duty of minimizing harm to all civilians.
5. Premise 5: The actions of the Israeli army in freeing 4 Israelis led to the death of over 100 Palestinian civilians and injury to hundreds more.
6. Conclusion: Therefore, if the Israeli army’s actions result in a high number of civilian casualties and injuries, it contradicts the claim of being the most moral army, according to the principle of minimizing harm.

This revised argument holds up better under scrutiny from various moral theories and provides a more solid basis for the reductio ad absurdum.

And one must agree.

Common Sense Will Do

However, we did not need the reductio to see the falsity of the Israeli claim. In truth, the inherent unreliability of Israel’s subjective claim to having the most moral army is by itself sufficient grounds to dismiss it as false. What do we think of a friend or acquaintance who considers themselves more moral than everyone else, and goes around saying so? Self-declared claims to any kind of virtue, especially moral heights, should always raise loud alarm bells.

And Just to Make Sure…

Even so, should the common sense approach leave us wanting, there is also a strong supporting philosophical and logical analysis to further roundly refute this preposterous and quite pernicious Israeli hasbara. Under the guise of morality, Israel massacred scores of innocent people in just this latest atrocity, not to mention slaughtered nearly 40,000 Palestinians since Hamas massacred 1,200 Israelis on October 7, 2023. Both acts are massacres and vile in the eyes of anyone striving to be an enlightened, modern individual wishing to get on well with everyone on this fragile planet. Yet one is moved to call out the Israeli gall in claiming it holds the moral high ground when it can be argued very convincingly that it holds less than Hamas. As one might note also of the entire Zionist enterprise, Israel may have the land, but the moral high ground will forever elude it.