|
The Ethics of War – summary notes for
students
( These are rough notes, summarising
the lecture; they should not be used or reproduced verbatim,
but are provided in order to give a general overview of the
issue.)
In war we authorise individuals to kill.
The morality that normally applies to the relationship
between individuals is replaced by one in which the
individual, in uniform, become an agent of the state. His or
her actions are not judged on an individual basis, but
(provided that the established rules of war are followed)
according to the validity of the war itself.
-
Is it right to require individuals to
act as agents of the state? Is it right to execute a
conscript who deserts for whatever reason?
-
Does an action become right just
because it is commanded by someone in authority?
Traditionally, the ethics of was has
concentrated on two sets of issues, in what is generally
termed the ‘Just War’ theory:
1)
When
is it right to go to war? (jus
ad bellum)
It may be just to go to war if:
1. 1) it is done by proper authority
(e.g. by a nation, not by an individual)
2. 2) there is a good reason to go to
war (e.g. in self-defence)
3. 3) the intention is to establish
peace / justice
-
A nation? An ethnic group? A
particular social group? International organisations
(UN, NATO)? Any group who feel unfairly treated? Who
should have the responsibility of declaring and carrying
out acts of war?
-
Terrorism – What morality is there in
it? Can a sense that one is oppressed be considered a
valid basis for lethal action? Is terrorism morally more
acceptable if it is aimed at military targets rather
than civilians? When does a freedom fighter or
resistance fighter become a terrorist?
-
Should the decision to carry out an
act of war depend on the anticipated result, or on the
intention of the person who took the decision to go to
war?
-
What if the decision to go to war is
found to be based on false information? Does that affect
whether the war itself is right or wrong?
2)
How
should wars be fought? (jus in
bello)
While waging war, justice is established
if:
-
It is waged against military
personnel, not against civilians.
2. 2) The force used is proportional
(e.g. the harm caused should not outweigh what is to be
gained)
3. 3) The minimum force should be used
sufficient to achieve one’s end
·
Is it ever
possible to wage war without civilian casualties, either
directly or indirectly? Can ‘smart weapons’ make a war
morally acceptable?
·
Is it ever
possible to assess the total suffering inflicted through
war? Wars cause long-term economic harm, which leads to
further suffering for civilians.
·
Can the use of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (WMD) be justified?
It is also important to think about
the broader social and political effects of war.
·
Civilisation
depends on security and peace. Ethical issues arise once
peace is threatened by an act of aggression. In general,
actions are deemed ‘just’ or ‘right’ if they aim to
re-establish peace.
·
But if a just
peace can only be secured permanently by the use or threat
of violence, does that justify the violence? Is it right to
go to war in order to establish regime change in another
country, however unjust the political situation in that
country?
·
On a
utilitarian basis one can look at what is gained or lost
through war. ‘What if’ games – What if Hitler had taken over
Europe in 1940? Would that outcome
have been worse overall, compared with the sacrifices make
in the war that stopped him? Can you ever achieve a definite
answer to that utilitarian question?
Religion and the ethics of war:
-
Buddhism, Jainism and some Hindu
traditions place emphasis on ahimsa (not harming) and
are therefore opposed to all forms of war. The social
tradition of Hinduism and Sikhism allow war in order to
fulfil one’s social obligation, for reasons of
self-defence and to maintain the right order in
society.
-
Judaism, Christianity and Islam have
arguments that justify the use of force, claiming that
there are circumstances when it is necessary to secure
justice and peace.
-
According to the Talmud, both Jews
and non-Jews may kill a pursuer in order to save their
own life. It is permissible to kill an attacker who is
threatening the life of another person. It is obligatory
to attempt to stop, and if necessary to kill, a person
who is trying to kill another Jew.
-
These come from the scriptural
principle of the right to self-defence. (There is debate
about whether or not it is permitted to use war for the
purposes of territorial gain.) But, according to Jewish
rules on self-defence, it is wrong to kill someone
after he or she has committed the act, only as a way
of preventing them from doing so. Killing should
not be for punishment only, but to prevent further harm.
There should be restraint, never total destruction.
-
Islam has the principle of Jihad.
There are 2 kinds: Greater Jihad is the spiritual
struggle to overcome faults. Lesser Jihad is the
struggle against external threats.
Valid reasons for performing the lesser
Jihad are:
-
§
to defend the Ummah (the
Community of the Islam) against external threat.
-
to fight on behalf of the oppressed
against injustice
-
It should only be used as a last
resort, when peaceful means of defence fail.
-
It should be carried out with
compassion, causing minimum suffering.
-
Its aim
is to establish justice, not to cause suffering
be
This is a remarkable time to be examining
the ethics of warfare. You have the debate about the
validity of the war in Iraq, and its aftermath, as well as
the whole issue of terrorism and suicide bombings. Once you
are aware of the ‘just war’ principles, you should make sure
you have examples ready to illustrate your understanding of
each of them. And, as with many ethical issues, the
newspapers or serious debates on the TV are a valuable
source of information.
MT 17/11/05
|
