War

1. War

2. The Spirit of War

3. The moral significance of war

4. Jus ad bellum • Justice (in going) to war • What would justify going to war?

5. Jus in bello • Justice in war • What are the rules of conduct in war?

6. Arguments that War is sometimes justifiable

7. Rectificatory justice • How can you right a wrong?

8. Rectificatory justice • How can you right a wrong? Aristotle: • This must be done by a proper authority: a judge with authority to adjudicate • It is for a just cause: there must have been an injustice that harmed someone • It is intended for a just purpose: to set things right again, to make things as if the injustice had never occurred

9. Going to war • Just war theory (Aquinas): Classic answer, based on rectificatory justice • A war is just if: • It is waged by a proper authority • It is for a just cause: the enemy deserves to be attacked for some fault • It is intended for a just purpose: to advance good and avoid evil

10. Proper Authority • A war must be waged by a proper authority • Wars must be waged by legitimate governments or international organizations granted such authority by legitimate governments (e.g., NATO, the UN) • Decisions to go to war must be made by proper authorities within those governments or organizations

11. Just Cause • Wars must be fought for just causes, on account of faults • Faults that might justify war: • Aggression (countries may defend themselves, their citizens, or one another, against attacks) • Danger (countries may attack a country preemptively if it endangers them?) • Human rights (countries may defend citizens from violations of their rights?)

12. Just Purpose • Wars must be intended for just purposes: to advance good and avoid evil • Wars must be waged, not for self-interest, but because it’s the right thing to do • Good purposes: • Restore peace • Defend citizens • Save lives • Advance freedom and democracy • Protect human rights

13. Just wars: World War II • Allies waged war by proper authority: official declarations of war by legitimate governments

14. Just wars: World War II • Just cause: response to attacks (Germany attacked Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Russia, and Britain; Japan attacked China, various East Asian countries, and the United States)

15. Just wars: World War II • Just purpose: intended to stop aggression and restore peace

16. Unjust wars • Lack of just authority: Those not waged by the proper authority • Rebellions, revolutions not authorized by any legitimate body • Wars waged by illegitimate governments • Private wars, vigilante actions

17. No just authority: Che Guevara

18. No just authority: Sept. 11

19. Unjust wars • Lack of just cause: Those not in response to some fault • Wars of aggression (Italy attacking Ethiopia; Germany attacking Poland et al.; Japan attacking China & the US; North Korea attacking South Korea; Iraq attacking Kuwait) • Wars based on misunderstanding • Wars to maintain unjust control (USSR invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia)

20. Aggression: Blitzkrieg, 1940

21. Unjust control: Hungary, 1956

22. Unjust wars • Lack of just purpose: Those waged for a reason other than seeking good and avoiding evil, e.g., revenge, hatred, envy, aggrandizement, cruelty, the fever of revolt, the lust for power

23. Unjust Purpose: Iran-Iraq War, 1980

24. Unjust Purpose: Napoleon’s Invasion of Russia, 1812

25. Unjust Purpose: Hitler’s Invasion of Russia, 1941

26. Unjust Purpose: Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait, 1990

27. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) • On the Law of War and Peace: “The grounds of war are as numerous as those of judicial actions. For where the power of law ceases, there war begins.”

28. Justifiable Causes of War • Defense: “Injury, or the prevention of injury, forms the only justifiable cause of war.” • Indemnity: right to recovery, redress, damages, compensation for injury • Punishment: punish aggressor, deter future aggressors

29. How does injury justify war? • Principle of self-preservation: you may kill an aggressor if • you are threatened with immediate danger • the danger can’t otherwise be avoided • Aggressor forces people to risk their lives for the sake of their rights • Aggression justifies forceful resistance

30. The Domestic Analogy • There exists a society of independent states • This society has a law establishing rights of its members • Any use of force, or immanent threat of force, by one state against another is a criminal act • Aggression justifies wars of self-defense and of law enforcement • Nothing but aggression can justify war • Aggressors can be repulsed and punished

31. Arguments for Pacifism

32. Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) • Ahimsa: Non-violence • “Non-violence is infinitely superior to violence.” • Gandhi argues for pacifism: violence is morally unacceptable

33. The Ethics of Killing • Killing is intrinsically wrong • The only exception: when it is in the interest of the one being killed • Even then, it would be hard to have confidence that killing is right

34. Deontological Arguments • It is wrong to cause pain or kill • Out of anger • For a selfish purpose • Or with the intention of harming it • Non-violence ennobles those who lose their lives

35. Consequentialist Arguments • Non-violent responses to aggression defuse anger • It is not weakness, but pitting oneself against the will of the tyrant • It can achieve political objectives • In the long run, it results in the least loss of life

36. When Killing is Justified • One must destroy life to live— but one should do it as little as possible • One can kill to stop suffering • One can kill a crazed person running amok

37. Justifying War • Some wars are justified: WWII, Korea • But the future is unpredictable • Unforeseen effects always outweigh foreseen effects • So, it’s impossible to know, at the time, that a decision to use violence is justified

38. Objections to Pacifism • If killing is wrong, it must be because life has value • But then why can’t someone kill to protect or defend life? • Orwell: Gandhi gained independence for India, but from the British— would it have worked against a ruthless, totalitarian foe? • How can a pacifist protect the persecuted?

39. Preventive War • Can one ever attack first? • Talmud: “If a man is coming to kill you, wake up early and kill him first.”

40. Against Preventive War • Preventive war presupposes a standard for measuring danger • Fought to maintain balance of power • Utilitarian argument: • The balance of power maintains order that makes liberty possible • Fighting early reduces cost of defense

41. Against Preventive War • Second-level utilitarian argument: • Accepting that argument leads to countless wars whenever shifts in power relations occur • Threats might justify war, but fear doesn’t; how can we tell them apart? • It’s best to rely on legalist paradigm

42. For Preventive War • Sometimes, it really is less costly to fight early • Example: Nazi occupation of Rhineland, 1936; WWII could have been prevented • It’s hard top gauge likelihood or magnitude of future attacks • But cost the attack will impose, multiplied by probability, may be very high

43. For Preventive War • Suppose there’s a 50% chance of an attack • Cost of that attack: 100 • Expected cost: 50 • If a preventive war would cost less than 50, it’s justified

44. For Preventive War: Terror • This argument is especially strong when applied to terrorism • Terrorists can do vast damage • Retaliation and deterrence are difficult • Hard to track who’s responsible • Terrorists may be widely dispersed • Suicide bombers can’t be punished after the fact

45. For Preventive War • Domestic analogy: we punish people for planning to commit crimes • Evidence has to be convincing, but standard is weaker for violent crimes • Individuals who can’t be deterred can be punished in advance

46. Jus in bello • What are the proper rules of warfare? • Walzer: That one may not shoot someone in the act of surrendering shows that there are such rules • Not everything is permitted • “War is distinguishable from murder and massacre only when restrictions are established on the reach of battle.”

47. Jus in bello • When and how can soldiers kill? Walzer: This appears largely conventional. • Limitations of weapons (e.g., chemical and biological weapons treaties); limitations on questioning, torture • But are these merely conventional?

48. Treatment of prisoners • 235,000 American and British prisoners were held by the Germans and Italians; 4% died • 132,000 were held by the Japanese; 27% died • American aircraft machine-gunned Japanese survivors swimming for shore; Americans often shot surrendering Japanese • Japanese doctors performed horrendous experiments on prisoners • Johnson: “moral confusion”

49. Rules of War • Whom can they kill? • War is a combat among combatants • Killing someone not currently engaged in the business of war is a crime

50. Rules of War • Grotius: we may defend ourselves against allies of our enemy • We may attack even when the attack endangers innocent lives