Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
War and Peace - Coggle Diagram
War and Peace
pacifism
Biblical pacifism
-
-
Not all Christians absolutist - some believe in banning individual acts of violence allow military action in service of state i.e. protecting innocent, defence
-
Quakers : refuse to bear arms - provide relief and rehabilitation - active peacemaking eg. facilitate communication between diplomats, non-violence workshops
Brian Caplan
war is never trill defensive - civilians always harmed - predictions never accurate - unlikely good achieved outweighs bad (death ratio)
-
CRITCISMS
Niebuhr : we have not achieved heaven on earth yet - humans evil so Christians must use force to restrain evil intentions - force necessary component in working for victory of good over evil
Anscombe - pacifism fails to protect innocent life - better to kill a bad person than let bad people kill good people
Singer - innocent bystander - not killing someone who kills other means you have part of the responsibility - if you have power to. help you should
Gordon Graham - moral self indulgence - placing principle over human life to feel good about oneself
Realism
war is beyond the reach of ethics, cannot be prevented or controlled, normal moral rules should not apply
-
Christian realism - Niebuhr may be lesser of two evils, duty to support the state
Just War Theory
Jus As Bellum, Jus In Bello, Jus Post Bellum - war needs to fit certain criteria before during and after war so good achieved proportionate to evil of fighting
-
relativist - sometimes right sometimes wrong - but some tenets of war absolutist wrong (chemical weapons, torture of prisoners)
both consequentialist (looking at probability of success) and deontological (legitimate authority focuses on action itself)
EVALUATION
WEAKNESSES
consequentialism - i.e. looking at outcomes too unpredictable not a practical approach (WW1 was meant to be over by Christmas), development of new technology cannot be predicted
focus on intention impractical as people generally go to wa for both mixed and dishonest motives eg. US Gulf wars due to Hussein being tyrannical but won't go to war on equally bad dictators as their country not oil-rich
Jus in bello goes against nature fo war - too idealistic - soldiers in heat of battle can not be expected to act in dignified manner
-
Jus post bellum too vague - how long for (treaty of versailles enough or should it be long term - but would that infringe freedom of country
STRENGTHS
although all factors together may be impractical - considering them is likely to improve/correct morality i.e. reducing frequency of war crimes
Holy War]
Pope Urban II : began a to maintain land, stressed virtues of soldier i.e. sacrificial love - spiritual battle to overcome evil - rapidly transformed to holy war where death of infidel enough justification
Francis Bacon : 5 criteria - spread faith, retrieve ex-chritstian nations - rescue Christians, recover consecrated places, revenge blasphemous acts, accept all societies have some natural law
BUT : dehumanises enemy not distinguishing civilians, does not distinguish means from end i.e. all enemy evil
-
Militarism
should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to promote or defend intersts
-