The act of warfare is one that is markedly complex when viewed from an ethical and moral standpoint. Encompassed within warfare are many acts such as murder, espionage, abduction, torture, and other such violent behaviors that within the scope of normal society in traditional civilian life would be viewed as crimes. Such crimes would be subject to the severest of punishments, including the death penalty in those states in which it is active, as the water-boarding, torture, and execution of a non-combatant would be 1st degree murder with a bevy of other charges. Within the scope of warfare in pursuit of intelligence, such behaviors are not only accepted, but at times common. Herein, the designation between combatant and non-combatant will be explored in relation to the concept of ethically just war. According to Margalit and Walzer (2009) “Conduct your war in the presence of noncombatants on the other side with the same care as if your citizens were the noncombatants”. This is an important precept and should be followed within warfare, the reasons of which will be explored extensively herein. The Unethical Character of War Walzer’s just war theory is characterized by the proposition that the single justification for going to war is the defense of two basic human rights, those of the right to life, and the right to liberty. It is necessary that war be based upon one of these two concepts to be justifiable from an ethical standpoint. Within the scope of war there are two problems, those of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, the justification for going to war, and the justification for specific actions within the scope of war respectively. These two concepts are advanced as being separate although related (Dubik, 1992). The ... ... middle of paper ... ...ineation between combatant and non-combatant within the confines of war is essential to limiting the collateral damage that is realized therein. The killing of civilians is something that is entirely unacceptable, and must be viewed in a bilateral sense. Should America engage in the killing of citizens of another nation through the collateral damage of war, then similar activities on behalf of the enemy that killed American citizens would in effect be justified. This duality of effect must be considered when engaging in war, even in legitimate military actions. The concept of double effect exhibits the common harm that may be realized through war, and the at times unavoidable nature of collateral damage. The potential of collateral damage underlines the importance of carefully protecting non-combatants, as in doing so the harm they may realize is minimized.
Laws exist to protect life and property; however, they are only as effective as the forces that uphold them. War is a void that exists beyond the grasps of any law enforcing agency and It exemplifies humankind's most desperate situation. It is an ethical wilderness exempt from civilized practices. In all respects, war is a primitive extension of man. Caputo describes the ethical wilderness of Vietnam as a place "lacking restraints, sanctioned to kill, confronted by a hostile country and a relentless enemy, we sank into a brutish state." Without boundaries, there is only a biological moral c...
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
Before in the introduction, the essay introduced limited war and total war, and there is a difference between the two wars. Limited war is war with restriction such as weapon usage (not using nuclear weapons) and territories involved. A limited war follows the ‘Just War Theory’, while total war is solely meant on pure obliteration of opposing side.
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain ...
In response to the unjust warfare committed in Vietnam, many activists rose to the challenge to oppose what they believed was wrong. Their activism has slowly changed the way the United States conducts foreign policy. Many forms of weaponry such as herbicides and napalm have been removed from use due to the outcry of their inhumane methods. The sacrifices that these activists made should serve as an example for modern and future American citizens to oppose unjust conflicts and war crimes regardless of the nation they are committed by.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
This article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless. The article provides two main reasons that states engage in victimization of civilians; desperation or appetite for territorial conquest. The former refers to lowering costs of war on the states part by increasing the enemy’s cost and lowering the enemy’s morale for continuing the battle. The latter refers to a states want for more land to claim, using force and death to get what they want, by subduing or eliminating the enemy. The civilians who are targeted for these purposes are also chosen strategically. Mistreatment of civilians of the enemy occurs when specific values or traditions are seen as barbaric to the
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
Just War and Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (2):160-81. Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987) The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Utilitarianism and other essays.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
Present legal principles are only credible if supported by strong rational and moral reasoning. The most influential moral justification for humanitarian intervention, is founded in natural law and just war theory, dating back to St Augustine. It is argued that there exist inherent and objective moral principles within humanity, irrespective of societal development. Therefore, according to just war theory, certain wars, in which such principles have been infringed upon are considered to be absolutely just (Jus ad Belum). This concept of legitimized wars in the name of justice, for example in self defense, can also be extended to humanitarian intervention. The breaking of fundamental human rights by states creates a situation whereby intervention in the defense of humanity is morally permissible. This view was expounded by philosopher Hugo Grotius, often described as a ‘father’ of modern international law, who supported the legality of humanitarian intervention in a situation “where a tyrant should inflict upon his subjects such treatment as no one is warranted in inflicting” (as cited in Chesterman