Your argument suggests that only X are responsible for Y&#x27;s civilian deaths. But given that X and Y are at war with each other, if Y sets up military operations in the middle of Y&#x27;s civilians (&quot;human shields&quot;) whereas X keeps its civilians and military apart, then I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s fair to say that X are performing worse (less ethically, or whatever) if more of Y&#x27;s civilians die in the conflict than X&#x27;s civilians.<p>&gt; It shouldn’t be the only way in which we compare them. But it’s still informative to compare them.<p>Unfortunately I think it&#x27;s as uninformative to compare them as it is uninformative to not compare them. I think it only makes sense to count a civilian death in the context of what the civilian was doing in an area targeted by the military of the other side. That is relatively easy in the West to understand, since these areas aren&#x27;t in the middle of warzones. In areas of conflict it becomes impossible to understand because of propaganda.