Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
War (contemporary just war theory) - morality of war - Coggle Diagram
War (contemporary just war theory) - morality of war
Realist
Pacifist
Traditionalist
Often sees war as sometimes necessary but governed by strict moral and ethical rules to avoid unnecessary suffering or barbarism.
War can be necessary and proportionate only if it serves an end worth all this death and destruction. Hence the importance of having a just cause
e.g. use of drones, autonomous weapons systems integrated with A.I. - does it achieve an acceptable axiological degree to justify its use in war?
Indeed, traditional just war theory recognizes only two kinds of justification for war: national defence (of one’s own state or of an ally) and humanitarian intervention. What’s more, humanitarian intervention is permissible only to avert the very gravest of tragedies—“crimes that shock the moral conscience of mankind”
However, the issue with fortifying national defences, humanitarian interventions, in which one typically defends all kinds of people even against their own state, undermine political sovereignty and territorial integrity of the geopolitical environment in question. As a result, humanity must achieve a higher burden of justification to uphold human dignity and reinforce the organic social contract for humanitarian freedom
Is it non-discriminatory? Are the harms/consequences appropriately proportional to the goals the attack is intended to achieve? Has it strictly adhered and provide proper justification to the of 'necessity' of the upcoming war in question? Then proceed.
Revisionist
The revisionist view critically re-examines historical events, often challenging traditional accounts, questioning motivations, and highlighting previously overlooked factors or perspectives. They deny that the contemporary law of armed conflict is intrinsically morally justified, but believe, mostly for pragmatic reasons
contemporary examples
e.g. Nagasaki bombing to end WW2, Vietnam War, Cold Wars
Morally questionable and was this really strategically necessary?
the allies/victors fought a war to defeat fascism in the name of humanitarianism to avert the gravest mass atrocities
perhaps
Was ideological opposition to communism/facism/authoritarianism used as a cover for economic/corporate/imperialistic/colonisation interests?
However, despite differences in opinion, when faced with a clash between what is morally and what is legally permitted or prohibited, should individuals, or let me rephrase, should we as fellow human beings should follow our moral conscience rather than the law?
ultimate conclusion/call to action
The collective dimensions of warfare could be more fully explored. But few have reflected on whether group agency is present and morally relevant in war.
And yet it is superficially very natural to discuss wars in these terms, especially in evaluating the war as a whole. When the British parliament debated in late 2015 whether to join the war against ISIL in Syria and Iraq, undoubtedly each MP was thinking also about what she ought to do. But most of them were asking themselves what the United Kingdom ought to do. This group action might be wholly reducible to the individual actions of which it is composed. But this still raises interesting questions: in particular, how should I justify my actions, as an individual who is acting on behalf of the group? Must I appeal only to reasons that apply to me? Or can I act on reasons that apply to the group’s other members or to the group as a whole? And can I assess the permissibility of my actions without assessing the group action of which they are part?
Despite the prominence of collectivist thinking in war, discussion of war’s group morality is very much in its infancy.