If we ask what utilitarianism implies about warfare, two plausible but radically different answers come to mind. The first answer derives from the fact that utilitarianism was devised, promoted, and embraced by humanitarian reformers whose chief aim was to improve the conditions of human life by reforming social and political institutions. For utilitarians, war, even though sometimes justifiable, is always a great evil. Jeremy Bentham called war “mischief upon the largest scale.” It involves the extensive use of violence against persons, resulting in death, injury, pain, disability, and the loss of loved ones. War often damages or destroys the physical and social infrastructure that supports and enhances human life – government facilities, sources of economic productivity, institutions like hospitals, schools, and museums, and objects such as roads and houses. For these reasons, utilitarians will seek to limit both recourse to war and the damages caused in the course of war.

According to this “humanitarian” reading of utilitarianism, utilitarians would find the principle of noncombatant immunity very attractive as a means to limit the damaging effects of war on human life. Since noncombatant immunity places most of the population of belligerent nations and warring groups off limits to intentional attack, honoring that principle would greatly diminish the human costs of war. From this perspective, it seems obvious that utilitarians would favor noncombatant immunity.