Moral Event Horizons

I’ve been listening to Overly Sarcastic Productions Lightning Round with Red and Ludohistory (here it is!). And they are talking about the trope known as: moral event horizon. TVTropes defines this in its laconic entry as: “A horrendously evil act that marks its perpetrator as irredeemable.”

Obviously this trope is subjective. But I can’t help but think about how most real civilizations would be seen to have crossed the moral event horizon. Look at World War Two. Okay the Nazis cross the moral event horizon multiple times without blinking. Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia is a moral event horizon for most people. And of course Mussolini’s treatment of Italians as well. Japan has Pearl Harbor, the Rape of Nanking, the invasion of Manchuria, is POW camp war crimes, and its kamikaze fighter plane attacks.

But the UK has the bombing of Dresden and other civilian targets. Canada has the burning of the town of Friesoythe, and the murder of German POWs during the invasion of Sicily. The US has the dropping of the atomic bomb, and more than 400 instances of war rape among many other examples across all sides.

The idea of World War Two as a good war is an illusion only possible because of the scope of the evil that was the Holocaust. And this can be done with any war. So the question becomes, is war itself a moral event horizon? Or does war negate the relevance of moral event horizons. I don’t like the second option, but what does one do when one is invaded- as Ukraine currently experiencing. I have heard reports of Ukrainian war crimes. I’ve heard nowhere near as many as the reports of Russian war crimes. But it seems as though war crimes are inevitable in war. How do we deal with that? Should a nation allow itself to be conquered rather than resort to war crimes? I don’t know. I legitimately don’t know. Just musing here. Uncomfortable topic that feels surprisingly relevant.