Analysis of Double Effect in "The Cruel Sea"
By Greg McCulley
Drafted 15 May 1998
����������� The first condition of double effect states that the act to be done must be good in itself, or at least indifferent.�� In the movie, the act of running over the survivors with the ship and then detonating charges beneath them is certainly not good, but it is indifferent.� The captain did not intend to harm the men in the water, nor does the act require the death of the men to be successful in attacking the U-boat.� The use of the depth charges was a just, legitimate act of war that met all of the conditions of jus in bello.� This condition of the principle is, perhaps, the easiest one of the four to satisfy.
����������� In Nicholas Monsarrat's 1952 film "The Cruel Sea", the captain of HMS Compass Rose faced a terrible decision.� He had the chance to destroy a dreaded German U-boat, but directly above the enemy swam several surviving members of a sunk civilian vessel.� The captain took a moment of pause to decide, but only a moment; he pressed the attack and brought depth charges to bear against his submerged foe.� In doing so, he killed the men swimming on the surface.� Afterwards, the captain spent quite some time deliberating on the justness of his actions.�� This essay discusses why the captain was indeed just in his action in the movie.� In this discussion, I will use the four conditions of the principle of double effect as a guide.
����������� The second condition of double effect is that the intended good is not obtained by the means of the evil effect.� In other words, the evil effect must be only an incidental by-product.� The captain, clearly, did not want to see the swimmers killed.� He wanted to destroy the U-boat that was beneath them.� The intended good in this case was the eradication of a U-boat that might go on to kill more merchantmen or allied forces.��� The evil effect here is, obviously, the killing of the survivors.� It is clear, then, that the effective application of armed conflict is not obtained by killing a dozen or so noncombatants swimming in the area.�� Their deaths, rather, are only an incidental by-product of the attack on the U-boat.��
����������� The third condition stipulates that the evil effect must not be intended for itself, but only permitted.� This means that in order to satisfy this condition, the captain must not wish to kill the swimmers.� The evil effect cannot be a part of any hidden agenda.� When evaluating this condition, think of World War II.� When the American troops met the Soviet troops at the Elbe near the end of the war in Europe, there was much celebration of their common victory.� This seems ironic to me, knowing how in just a few years, the Cold war would be in full swing, with Berlin at the center of the storm.� What if the timeline had been rolled forward for some hypothetical reason and US-Soviet relations deteriorated even more rapidly than they did?� If the US secretly had a beef with the USSR, she might find the time to provide some "air support" to the Soviets at the eastern front.� And, in doing so, they might even make a few risky bomb runs over locations where German and Soviet troops were in close proximity.� In such a hypothetical situation, the US would be in contravention of the third condition of double effect, since they really did not mind killing the Soviets along with the Germans.� In such a situation, one cannot honestly state that one sought to avoid the evil effect.� Not to belabor the point, but in "The Cruel Sea", the captain only permitted the evil effect, he did not intend it.
����������� The fourth and final condition is that there must be some proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect.� This is where the captain probably had the toughest decision point.� Was the risk of killing the merchantmen worth it?� The alternative was to abort the attack and rescue the merchantmen.� This could have had two possible outcomes that are unacceptable.� One, the U-boat might have attacked them as they commenced the rescue.� That could have resulted in the death of the crew and the merchantmen, which would result in even more bloodshed than pressing the attack would have had. Also, this would have hampered the war effort by removing a ship from the British order of battle.�� The second possible negative outcome could be that the U-boat could get away and attack again, costing an indeterminate amount of blood and treasure.�� This is the largest reason for continuing the attack: that to do otherwise could cost even more lives. If the U-boat were not destroyed, it might sink any number of ships, and that could conceivably lengthen the war, which would cause even more casualties on both sides.� The captain felt this was a proportionately grave reason for permitting the death of the swimmers, and I agree with him.
����������� The burden of command is said to be heaviest when leading men into harm's way.� In war, combatants are responsible for not only their own safety and that of their comrades-in-arms, but for the noncombatants that sometimes get caught in the crossfire.� Sometimes, though, it servers a greater good to allow a relatively few innocent to be slain in order to protect the needs of the many.� When making this decision, a commander must consider the proportionality of the action that will result in an evil effect, and ask himself, "Is there another way to accomplish what I must do?"� If there is another way that is less costly in lives, then it should be favored if it is feasible and moral.� In "The Cruel Sea", the captain weighed these options, and in his situation, to hesitate or abort the attack would have jeopardized far more than a few merchantmen.� As difficult a decision as it was to make, the captain's action was permissible under the four conditions of the principle of double effect.�
����������� It is easy to look with an analytical eye at the actions of others, and hindsight is almost always 20/20.� But what would I do if placed in the same situation as the captain of HMS Compass Rose?� That is the topic of part two of this essay.
Part 2
����������� If I had been the captain of the Compass Rose, I would have done the exact same thing.� I have four reasons for making this statement.� Some of my reasons stem from the conditions of double effect.� I agree with the captain because: 1) the U-boat might go on to kill other ships' men �2) the U-boat might kill my men� 3)� there was a reasonable assumption that the enemy was in fact where the ship?s sonar thought they were, and 4)� the enemy probably knew it was directly beneath the merchantmen.�
����������� From a war-fighting perspective, one of the most pressing reasons for attacking the U-boat might be to prevent it from being a viable element of opposition.� German U-boats killed thousands of allied merchant mariners and seamen during World War II.� Their presence in the Atlantic threatened vital seaways from the United States that were used by supply convoys.� Later, this area was the route used to move troops and weapons to the front after the US entered the war.� A naval priority during the war was the clearing of U-boats to keep this route across the Atlantic open.� As captain of a warship, I'm sure that seeking out and destroying U-boats would be of the utmost importance.� After all, the Compass Rose was designed to carry out these search-and-destroy missions.� To let one escape would invite just that many more casualties for the allies.� To me, after weighing the cost of innocent lives, this first reason for continuing the attack is a matter of my mission taking precedence.
����������� The second reason deals with the obligation of a commander to take care of his subordinates.� If left unchecked, the enemy might attack my ship, killing some or all of my crew.� When considering how many lives might be lost when considering a given attack, I think an inevitable consideration must be the threat to the lives of my men.� It may figure that it's just not worth the cost to press a given attack.� In the case of the Compass Rose, it's not worth it not to attack.� It is a matter of self-defense, not only for my ship and crew, but for myself as well.�
����������� My third reason for attacking is really a matter of equipment reliability.� In deciding whether to attack in a situation where one knows that innocent lives will be lost (a double effect scenario), the attacker should gather as much accurate information as possible before committing to the assault.� If there is a significant margin of error (admittedly, a very subjective stipulation), that is justification for abortion of the attack.� This "margin of error
