WARFARE

BY: GROUP 8
QUESTIONS ABOUT WARFARE

• Is resorting to war ever morally permissible?

• Is it permissible even if it involves the killing of thousands or millions?
• If self-defense is a valid reason for going to war, when is such action justified?
• Should we dispense with morality altogether?
MAIN ETHICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING WAR

• 1. How, if at all, can war be justified?

2. Assuming it can be justified, how should it be conducted?
• Three major categories:
• (1) Realism
• (2) Pacifism
• (3) Just War Theory
REALISM

• This view believes that moral standards are not applicable to war, which must be judged
only on prudence, on how well war serves state interest. War cannot be immoral, only
more or less advantageous for the state.
ARGUMENTS REGARDING REALISM

• Realist argue that morality has no part in warfare because all moral statements are
meaningless or unknowable or because moral norms do not apply to states, just to
persons.
• On the other hands, nonrealists believe that there is no good reason to think that states are
exempt from moral judgments. They insists that even when people favor a war of
extreme, indeed savage, measures, they tend to believe that there are at least some moral
limits to what can be done.
PACIFISM

• This view believes that war is never morally permissible.

• Pacifist are opposed to all wars regardless of the reasons behind them.
• They may believe that personal violence in self-defense or in law enforcement may be
justified.
ARGUMENTS REGARDING PACIFISM

• War is never justified because it always produces more bad than good.
• War is always wrong because in the deliberate killing of human beings, it violates a
fundamental right which is the right to life. This right, which may have either a religious
or secular basis, is absolute, admitting no exceptions.
• One counterargument against pacifism is that though war is horrific and often produces
more bad than good, at least sometimes the results may be good overall. Waging a war
could save the lives of many more people than are killed in the conflict or that fighting a
small war could prevent a much larger one.
JUST WAR THEORY

 It is an ethical framework used to determine when it is permissible to go to war.

 It originated with Catholic moral theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

Categories:
1. Jus ad bellum (justice towards war)
2. Jus in bello (justice in war)
3. Jus post bellum (justice after war)
JUS AD BELLUM (JUSTICE
TOWARDS WAR)

Principles:
 Is it for a just cause?
 Is it with right intention?
 Is it from a legitimate authority?
 Does it have due proportionality?
 Is it the last resort?
JUS IN BELLO (JUSTICE
IN WAR)

Principles:
 Discrimination
 Proportionality
 No intrinsically unethical means
 ‘Following orders’ is not a defence
JUS POST BELLUM (JUSTICE AFTER
WAR)

Principles:
 Status quo ante bellum
 Punishment for war crimes
 Compensation of victims
 Peace treaties
• consequentialist side- utilitarianism has been used both to
support and to undermine pacifism.
• Utilitarianism- is an ethical theory that determines the right from
wrong by focusing on outcomes.
• Pacifism- the belief that any violence including war is unjustifiable
under any circumstances, and all disputes should be setted by
peaceful mean
Thomas nagel is an american philospher. He pubslished an essay in 1972 in
response to the Vietnam War. “War and Massacre” discusses what type of
actions can be justified, specifically in the context of warfare.

Thomas nagel provides some example of such pacifist arguments:

The consequence of refusing to go to war will never be as bad as the war
itself it would be, even if atrocities were not committed.
A uniform policy of never resorting to military force would do less harm in
the long run, if followed consistently.
Utilitarian elements are built into just war
theory, which is coherent system of both
consequentialist and non
consequentialist.
last 3 requirements are usually taken as consequentialist
• last resort- If there are other means of achieving the same objectives,
such as negotiations or economic blockades, they should be pursued
exhaustively first.
• good proportional to the bad-Are the possible benefits (especially in
terms of a just peace) proportional to the death, suffering, and
destruction that the pursuit of the war will bring about?
• reasonable chance of success- Only enter into war if you have a
chance of success
Jus in bello (the right conduct in war)
conditions of discrimination and
proportionality are often viewed as
rules for maximizing the good for both
combatants and noncomabatant.
when justifying views on the resort to war
both pacifist and nonpacifist may take a
nonconsequentialist approach, appealing to
the fundamental moral principles rather
than to the results of actions.

Pacifist- typically rest their case on the

right to life
Nonpacifist- on the right of self defense
or the defense of basic human rights
generally.
Absolutist nonconsequentialist maintain that the intentional killing
of noncombatant is always normally wrong regardless of the
circumstances, but for consequentialist insist that there are
exceptions sometimes.
Absolutists have been termed "immunity theorist"
Immunity theorist hold that it is always morally impermissible to
intentionally kill noncombatants in war.
Noncombatants are innocent and thus immune from attack.
• Consequentialist believe that actions in war can be morally
justified depending on the end or aim of the action.
• Consequentialist, unlike absolutists can morally justify the
intentional killing of noncombatant or innocents in war.
MORAL ARGUMENTS
SELF-DEFENSE

• A state’s self defense is thought to be just cause for unleashing the dogs of war.
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

• A state going to war to defend people of another state against the murderous aggression
of their own regime.
STANDARD CASES HAVE A STANDARD FORM:

• GOVERNMENT
• ARMY
• POLICE FORCE
• TYRANNICALLY CONTROLLED
• ATTACKS ITS OWN PEOPLE OR SUBSET OF ITS OWN PEOPLE
• VULNERABLE MINORITY
• SAY
• TERRITORIALLY
Larry May, Eric Rovie, and Steve viner, in The Morality of War: Classical and
Contemporary Readings, ed. May, Rovie, and Viner (Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/ Prentice Hall, 2006), 200.

• Based or dispersed throughout the country. The attack takes place within the country’s
borders; It doesn’t require any boundary crossings; it is an exercise of sovereign power.
MICHAEL WALZER, “THE ARGUMENT ABOUT
HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION.” DISCENT 49, NO. 1

• Those who say yes-the interventionists-might offer an argument like this:

1. An individual has a duty to try to stop an unjust and potentially fatal attack against
someone.
2. Humanitarian intervention by a state is exactly analogous to this type of personal
intervention on behalf of seriously threatened victims.
3. Therefor, states have a duty of humanitarian intervention.
Premise 1: It is a simple moral principle drawn from commonsense morality.
Premise 2: For an argument by analogy to be strong, the two things being compared must
be sufficiently similar in relevant ways.
INTERVENTIONIST ARGUMENT:

1. All persons have certain supremely important, basic rights.

2. People who have these basic rights violated are entitled to use force to defend them.
3. People or states that violate others basic rights forfeit their own right not to have force
used against them.
4. Therefore, humanitarian intervention is morally permissible in defense of basic rights.