Download
1 / 28
330 likes | 1.03k Views
WAR AND ETHICS. Philosophical Schools of War Theory. Realism is the view that war is an inevitable part of human history. Most realists view war as just another way that states relate to one another. A major philosopher of the realist school is Carl von Clausewitz, who stated famously:
E N D
WAR AND ETHICS Philosophical Schools of War Theory
Realism is the view that war is an inevitable part of human history. Most realists view war as just another way that states relate to one another. A major philosopher of the realist school is Carl von Clausewitz, who stated famously: • "War is a continuation of politics by other means.“ Realism
A realist sees nothing either right or wrong in war; it is merely one more tool in the statesman's toolbox. Realists view war as amoral, arguing that only individuals, not political entities, can behave ethically. Realists approach war from the position of a rational egoist and ask, "What's in it for us?" • They are concerned with consequences - outcomes of war. A war that advances national interest is a good war.
War is to be used as needed and realists are neither pro- nor anti- war. They will engage in war if it will advance their goals and they will avoid it when it will not. They weigh the costs and the benefits and will generally dismiss war as too risky. • Realists do not approve of wars fought for ideological, religious, or nationalistic motives. War is a rational, not emotional decision.
Once at war, realists typically endorse the view that "anything goes" and disagree that there is a moral way to fight war, since war is amoral by nature. Fighting "fair" is possible, though, if it serves the state's self-interest. For example, a state might agree not to attack enemy civilians because it might cause the enemy to retaliate against their civilians.
This consequentialist view is different from the deontological idea that attacking civilians is wrong in and of itself. During the Second World War, all participants in the European theatre had large stockpiles of poison gas, which they did not use against each other because they knew that once they started the enemy would retaliate. Realists include the 19th century German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and the 20th century American statesman Henry Kissinger.
2. Pacifism Pacifism is the belief that war is always wrong and that there can be no "good" war. Peace is good, and war, being the opposite, is bad. Pacifists have an optimistic view of human nature and believe that negotiation and discussion can lead to a peaceful resolution of conflicts. War, in this way, is never necessary and can never be justified.
Pacifism often finds its base in consequentialism: the costs of a war are always outweighed by any benefit; therefore, war is always wrong. This could be summed up in the saying, "There must be a better way to settle our differences."
Deontological pacifism would argue that killing (and violence in general) is wrong on principle. It might violate a Divine command against killing, or a Kantian categorical imperative with the same conclusion. In this case, war can never be right, for even a defensive war in which you defend yourself cannot be justified because it is requiring you to do wrong. The saying, "two wrongs don't make a right" applies in this case.
On the other hand, it could be argued that an aggressive attack gives you the right to defend the principle of pacifism, including your personal (or national) safety. Notable 20th century pacifists include Bertrand Russell, who was anti-war generally, but supported the struggle against Nazism in the Second World War, and Mohandas Gandhi, the mid-twentieth century leader of the movement toward Indian independence.
Just War Theory 'Just war' theory is a sort of middle ground between pacifism and realism. War is considered both good and bad, depending on the circumstances and whether it meets certain criteria. It can be viewed as a "necessary evil", an unpleasant duty that must be done.
Just war theory is a philosophical exploration of an activity that runs counter to most ethical systems. It examines what causes make a war a just (rightful) cause and how one should conduct war justly (rightly). A just war is a good war; a war fought unjustly is a bad war.
The concept that wars should be fought for good reasons and according to some ethical codes is a commonly held view. While not all philosophers agree on what makes up a just war, there is general agreement regarding some criteria. Just war theory is often named in Latin-Justum bellum (bellum meaning, war) and often subdivided into two parts, which look at the cause of a war and at the conduct.
Just cause: Jus ad bellum • What are right reasons to go to war? Just war theory allows a country to go to war, but the conflict must meet all of the following to be considered a just war: • Just cause: a good reason for the war, such as defending yourself when attacked or intervening to protect others; • Right intention: fighting only for the justice of your cause, and not for gain, such as annexing enemy territory to punish the loser;
Proper authority: only states (or political entities) can go to war, anything else is criminal violence, not war; in short, you must have the legitimate right to wage war; war should also be declared publicly; • Last resort: you must have tried to avoid war and preserved the peace, but you have been driven to war by the actions of your enemy;
Probability of success: the war should be winnable; if it is not, you will simply be engaging in pointless violence; this is controversial, as it would argue that weaker states should not resist aggression; • Proportionality: the overall harm done by the war must not be more than the good that you hope to achieve; in other words, the war will have long-term positive outcomes outweighing the short-term negative effects of the war (such as casualties and costs).
If your state is involved in a conflict that does not meet each and all the above criteria, according to just war theorists, it is not a just war. The first three criteria address a moral duty to do right, a "should" and are as such, deontological. The latter three address the likely outcome of the war and are consequentialist. Of course, the most crucial of the criteria is the justice of the cause. And that, of course, is often open to debate.
2. Just conduct in war: Jus in bello • Once at war for a just cause, how should one fight the war? Just war theory holds that there are right and wrong ways to wage war. There is less agreement on just conduct in war than about what makes a war just, but some criteria include: • Following the rules of war: the international community has worked out a series of conventions regarding acceptable and prohibited weapons, treatment of prisoners, and civilians; a just war obeys these norms of international war conduct;
Discrimination between combatants and civilians: only combatants may be harmed intentionally; every precaution should be taken to minimize collateral harm to non-combatants; • Proportionality: excessive force should not be used, only the force necessary to achieve victory;
Responsibility: war is a suspension of normal ethical rules, a violent activity that runs counter to normal morality, but it does not excuse any and all violence; only proper violence is to be used and if combatants kill outside these limits they are committing murder, not waging war; combatants must take responsibility for their actions and ensure they commit only just acts in pursuit of a just cause; in this category would fall the use of weapons whose effect is unknown (biological).
No inherently immoral acts: war requires the use of violence, but some forms of violence are outside the bounds even for a just cause, such as genocide/ethnic cleansing, torture, or mass rape; these acts are considered implicitly unjust and always inexcusable; in modern times, they are considered war crimes and individuals are held accountable for them.
War raises difficult questions and decisions about just conduct of the war are often difficult to assess. The following samples illustrate some of the dilemmas involved with trying to fight a just war:
Fighting well and losing--should you be bound by the rules of war if it means you will lose and the unjust cause will win? Unlike sports, war is about winning, not playing well. A tricky instance of this is when the enemy pushes civilians in front of them. Should your soldiers shoot the civilians to get at the enemy in the background, or hold their fire until the enemy is upon them and risk being overrun and killed?
Difficulty with distinguishing combatants from civilians. In a total war, everyone is involved in the war effort, and the factory workers are as important as the soldiers, that is, if you don't kill them, they will make weapons to kill your soldiers. Does this make them legitimate targets for violence?
In some wars, guerrilla wars for instance, it is very difficult to distinguish between combatants and civilians, even if best efforts are made. Is someone who farms by day and fights by night a civilian or a combatant? What of people who shelter combatants? What of children who may be used to plant bombs
In a war, it is difficult to estimate how much force is going to be enough and proportional to your needs. The Allied powers were criticized after the Second World War for using excessive force against Germany in their strategic bombing campaign, which was shown to have had little effect on the outcome of the war, but caused suffering to millions of German civilians.
The United States is still criticized for its decision to use atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. Both these actions were deemed necessary to winning the war at the time.
If a soldier is given an unjust order and carries it out, knowing that to refuse would mean punishment (including death), who is responsible: the soldier who carries it out or the person who gives the order? During the Second World War, there are accounts of German soldiers refusing to execute civilians and being executed by their own officers.
