A Consequentialist Argument against Area Bombing

In the debate over the Allied area bombing campaign during the Second World War, it is often assumed that the defenders of the campaign must be consequentialists, while those against must be moral absolutists. Bishop George Bell challenges this line of thought.

One might expect, from a bishop of the Church, an absolutist argument: And God said, Thou shalt not target civilians—or something like that. But when Bishop Bell addressed the House of Lords in 1944, he made no appeal to absolute moral rule:

"How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilisation? How can they be blind to the harvest of even fiercer warring and desolation, even in this country, to which the present destruction will inevitably lead when the members of the War Cabinet have long passed to their rest?... What we do in war—which, after all, lasts a comparatively short time—affects the whole character of peace, which covers a much longer period." (1)

Bell's argument is a thoroughly consequentialist one. While the bombing of civilians may seem to be justified in the short term, if we consider the long-term consequences, we will see that it is wholly unjustified. For Bell, true consequentialists—those who consider all of the consequences—ought to oppose the targeting of civilians.


1. Jonathan Glover. 1999. Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. London, UK: Jonathan Cape.