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. In his article “War …show more content…
He emphasizes that such principle is prior to any calculations of the possible outcomes that may occur if the rule is broken.(136) In other words, it is morally wrong to break the rule no matter how good the consequences will be. He then presents the principle in the form of how countries should act in a war: aggression that are directed toward someone can only be justified by something about that person that merits not only the aggression itself but also the type of aggression being used. Without the justification of something about that person, the aggression then will lose the characteristic of personal interaction, which is one of the essential qualities that a war has, and, as Nagel mentioned, will become “purely bureaucratic …show more content…
The suffering that the enemies have when the weapons are used is simply the side effect of what people have done to them. In other words, people who are using those weapons are indeed aiming at the threat that the enemies have, as the damage that those weapons do can definitely eliminate the enemies’ ability to continue to fight. And the agonies that people cause are what they bring about, but not what they intentionally do to the target. As Nagel has also discussed in his article, what absolutists care about is what one does to the other, but not what one brings about to the other. Therefore, the use of those weapons that cause extra pain does not violate the principle of not “fighting dirty” from the perspective of absolutism, and thus should not be regarded as immoral. This example also reveals a more general problem in Nagel’s problem: it is difficult to draw a line between what one does to another and what one brings about to the other, especially in a war, in which any operation may have caused complex effects, and it is difficult distinguish what are intended as mere means and what are side
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
Combat requires a certain emotional inertness. I am unable to kill something I empathize with as a human being. I need a reason to hate the enemy I am at war with; I need to be able to dehumanize the target. At first, as Caputo did, I would be unable to ignore the fact that the Vietcong are human beings with every right to live as I have. Following the brutal attempts to kill me, I will easily lose my own humanity as well as that of the enemy. It is the ethical wilderness that facilitates this dehumanizing transition. Once it is recognized that the enemy has dehumanized you, it is commonplace to return the favor.
According to Catholics for Peace and Justice, “the just war tradition begins with a strong presumption against the use of force and then establishes the conditions when this presumption may be overridden for the sake of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights.” The Just War Theory states that there are seven conditions that must be met in order for a declared war to be a true and just war. The first of these values is Just Cause. This means that force can only be utilized to correct an aggression or evil. If the war is being declared out of spite or to seek revenge, the war cannot be defined as being just. Also, there must be a formal declaration of war and warning with spoken terms of what the aims are and what this war will plan to fulfill. The next criterion is Comparative Justice which means the injustice suffered by one party can NOT significantly outweigh the suffering from the other party. For example, if the initial attack o...
In my opinion, Nagel's opinion regarding moral structure in war is a little too narrow-minded. When relating actions in war to absolutist restrictions expressed by Nagel, it is easy to identify many controversies within our moral paradigm. Such positions would not hold ground in issues like the middle-eastern conflict because, with constant attacks from both sides, it is very difficult to assess the right and the wrong by simply evaluating one particular action that country has taken in war. In this particular case, I believe that an assassination and air strike are clear actions for the overall good, however by absolutist terms, Nagel would have a difficult time seeing this counterattack as morally justifiable.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
Nordstrom looks to obscure and illuminate violence in the context of war. From the beginning of her book, she clearly states her goal as being “to explore the widely shared cultures of violence and the profound creativity t...
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
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.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
First, war is universal due to its violent nature, violence in its application knows no bounds, and it is the common factor that identifies the war and without it the war is nothing more than a diplomatic effort to reach the end. However, wars blow out only when the diplomacy fails. Violence is the war engine. Although the application of violence evolved through time and its severity varies according to communities, cultures, and the means and methods used. Demonstrating the violence through the application of force to subjugate the enemy is the central idea of war. “War is a clash between major interests,
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
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Clausewitz's On War, first published in 1832, until now remains one of the most influential studies in understanding character, nature and conditions of warfare. In his book Clausewitz not only traced an interaction of intension and planning with the realities of combat, but by exploring the relationship of war to policy, politics and society gave a new philosophical justification to the art of war. (Heuser, 2002)
In Thomas Nagel’s “Death,” he questions whether death is a bad thing, if it is assumed that death is the permanent end of our existence. Besides addressing whether death is a bad thing, Nagel focuses on whether or not it is something that people should be fearful of. He also explores whether death is evil. Death is defined as permanent death, without any form of consciousness, while evil is defined as the deprivation of some quality or characteristic. In his conclusion, he reaffirms that conscious existence ends at death and that there is no subject to experience death and death ultimately deprives a person of life. Therefore, he states that Death actually deprives a person of conscious existence and the ability to experience. The ability to experience is open ended and future oriented. If a person cannot permanently experience in the future, it is a bad or an evil. A person is harmed by deprivation. Finally, he claims that death is an evil and a person is harmed even though the person does not experience the harm.