War and Peace
pacifism
Just War Theory
Realism
Militarism
Holy War]
Modern military ethics
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
EVALUATION
failure to fight could be deemed morally wrong as neglecting duty to achieve higher good
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)
WEAKNESSES
STRENGTHS
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
avoiding civilian deaths could be exploited by soldiers placing HQ in civilian locations
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
although all factors together may be impractical - considering them is likely to improve/correct morality i.e. reducing frequency of war crimes
Biblical pacifism
"those who live by the sword die by the sword"
self-sacrificial love - chose crucifixion over fighting back
Not all Christians absolutist - some believe in banning individual acts of violence allow military action in service of state i.e. protecting innocent, defence
closes gap between OT and NT
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)
doctor 1 life to save 5 others thought experiment to show sanctity of all lives important
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
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
war is beyond the reach of ethics, cannot be prevented or controlled, normal moral rules should not apply
suggests no higher moral duty than preserving state
Christian realism - Niebuhr may be lesser of two evils, duty to support the state
should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to promote or defend intersts
Applying ethical theories
Kant
moral philosophy contradicts political philosophy
Situation ethics - contingent pacificism
moral philosophy : war treats people as a means to an end, people killed, treated as cogs in military machine, conscription undermines individual liberty
going to war may be most loving thing to do
Augustine : we may go to war but must still love our enemies even if we kill them (love and war compatible)
against use of excessive force (nuclear chemical weapons)
national self defence is acceptable - armies must be entirely volunteer based
principle of universilization : maxim of violence in self-defence logically universifiable, no one would be violent to oe another
means too an end : states = moral agents, can hold states morally accountable, but they must be seen as ends in themselves
kingdom of ends : creation of a league of nations would be a practical way to maintain global peace
BUT : if upheld notion of self-defence becomes meaningless, so not logical