Transcript War

War
The Spirit of War
The moral significance of war
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Jus ad bellum
 Justice (in going) to war
 What would justify going to war?
Jus in bello
 Justice in war
 What are the rules of conduct in war?
Arguments that War is
sometimes justifiable
Rectificatory justice
 How can you right a wrong?
Rectificatory justice
 How can you right a wrong? Aristotle:
– This must be done by a proper authority: a
judge with authority to adjudicate
– It is for a just cause: there must have been an
injustice that harmed someone
– It is intended for a just purpose: to set things
right again, to make things as if the injustice had
never occurred
Going to war
 Just war theory (Aquinas): Classic answer,
based on rectificatory justice
 A war is just if:
– It is waged by a proper authority
– It is for a just cause: the enemy deserves to be
attacked for some fault
– It is intended for a just purpose: to advance
good and avoid evil
Proper Authority
 A war must be waged by a proper authority
 Wars must be waged by legitimate
governments or international organizations
granted such authority by legitimate
governments (e.g., NATO, the UN)
 Decisions to go to war must be made by
proper authorities within those governments
or organizations
Just Cause
 Wars must be fought for just causes, on
account of faults
 Faults that might justify war:
– Aggression (countries may defend themselves,
their citizens, or one another, against attacks)
– Danger (countries may attack a country
preemptively if it endangers them?)
– Human rights (countries may defend citizens
from violations of their rights?)
Just Purpose
 Wars must be intended for just purposes: to
advance good and avoid evil
 Wars must be waged, not for self-interest,
but because it’s the right thing to do
 Good purposes:
– Restore peace
– Defend citizens
– Save lives
– Advance freedom and democracy
– Protect human rights
Just wars: World War II
 Allies waged war by proper
authority: official
declarations of war by
legitimate governments
Just wars: World War II
 Just cause: response
to attacks (Germany
attacked Poland,
Norway, Denmark,
Belgium, the
Netherlands, France,
Russia, and Britain;
Japan attacked China,
various East Asian
countries, and the
United States)
Just wars: World War II
 Just purpose: intended
to stop aggression and
restore peace
Unjust wars
 Lack of just authority: Those not waged by
the proper authority
– Rebellions, revolutions not authorized by any
legitimate body
– Wars waged by illegitimate governments
– Private wars, vigilante actions
No just authority: Che Guevara
No just authority: Sept. 11
Unjust wars
 Lack of just cause: Those not in response
to some fault
– Wars of aggression (Italy attacking Ethiopia;
Germany attacking Poland et al.; Japan
attacking China & the US; North Korea
attacking South Korea; Iraq attacking Kuwait)
– Wars based on misunderstanding
– Wars to maintain unjust control (USSR invading
Hungary, Czechoslovakia)
Aggression: Blitzkrieg, 1940
Unjust control: Hungary, 1956
Unjust wars
 Lack of just purpose: Those waged for a
reason other than seeking good and
avoiding evil, e.g., revenge, hatred, envy,
aggrandizement, cruelty, the fever of revolt,
the lust for power
Unjust Purpose: Iran-Iraq War, 1980
Unjust Purpose: Napoleon’s
Invasion of Russia, 1812
Unjust Purpose: Hitler’s Invasion
of Russia, 1941
Unjust Purpose: Iraq’s Invasion
of Kuwait, 1990
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)
 On the Law of War and
Peace: “The grounds
of war are as
numerous as those of
judicial actions. For
where the power of law
ceases, there war
begins.”
Justifiable Causes of War
 Defense: “Injury, or the
prevention of injury, forms the
only justifiable cause of war.”
 Indemnity: right to recovery,
redress, damages,
compensation for injury
 Punishment: punish
aggressor, deter future
aggressors
How does injury justify war?
 Principle of self-preservation:
you may kill an aggressor if
– you are threatened with
immediate danger
– the danger can’t otherwise be
avoided
 Aggressor forces people to
risk their lives for the sake of
their rights
 Aggression justifies forceful
resistance
The Domestic Analogy
 There exists a society of independent states
 This society has a law establishing rights of its
members
 Any use of force, or immanent threat of force,
by one state against another is a criminal act
 Aggression justifies wars of self-defense and of
law enforcement
 Nothing but aggression can justify war
 Aggressors can be repulsed and punished
Arguments for Pacifism
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
 Ahimsa: Non-violence
 “Non-violence is
infinitely superior to
violence.”
 Gandhi argues for
pacifism: violence is
morally unacceptable
The Ethics of Killing
 Killing is intrinsically
wrong
 The only exception: when
it is in the interest of the
one being killed
 Even then, it would be
hard to have confidence
that killing is right
Deontological Arguments
 It is wrong to cause
pain or kill
– Out of anger
– For a selfish purpose
– Or with the intention of
harming it
 Non-violence ennobles
those who lose their
lives
Consequentialist Arguments
 Non-violent responses to
aggression defuse anger
 It is not weakness, but
pitting oneself against
the will of the tyrant
 It can achieve political
objectives
 In the long run, it results
in the least loss of life
When Killing is Justified
 One must destroy life
to live— but one
should do it as little as
possible
 One can kill to stop
suffering
 One can kill a crazed
person running amok
Justifying War
 Some wars are justified:
WWII, Korea
 But the future is unpredictable
 Unforeseen effects always
outweigh foreseen effects
 So, it’s impossible to know, at
the time, that a decision to
use violence is justified
Objections to Pacifism
 If killing is wrong, it must be because life has
value
 But then why can’t someone kill to protect or
defend life?
 Orwell: Gandhi gained independence for
India, but from the British— would it have
worked against a ruthless, totalitarian foe?
 How can a pacifist protect the persecuted?
Preventive War
 Can one ever attack first?
 Talmud: “If a man is coming to kill you, wake
up early and kill him first.”
Against Preventive War
 Preventive war presupposes a
standard for measuring danger
 Fought to maintain balance of
power
 Utilitarian argument:
– The balance of power maintains
order that makes liberty possible
– Fighting early reduces cost of
defense
Against Preventive War
 Second-level utilitarian argument:
– Accepting that argument leads to
countless wars whenever shifts in
power relations occur
– Threats might justify war, but fear
doesn’t; how can we tell them
apart?
– It’s best to rely on legalist paradigm
For Preventive War
 Sometimes, it really is less
costly to fight early
 Example: Nazi occupation of
Rhineland, 1936; WWII could
have been prevented
 It’s hard top gauge likelihood or
magnitude of future attacks
 But cost the attack will impose,
multiplied by probability, may be
very high
For Preventive War
 Suppose there’s a 50%
chance of an attack
 Cost of that attack: 100
 Expected cost: 50
 If a preventive war would cost
less than 50, it’s justified
For Preventive War: Terror
 This argument is especially
strong when applied to
terrorism
 Terrorists can do vast damage
 Retaliation and deterrence are
difficult
– Hard to track who’s responsible
– Terrorists may be widely
dispersed
– Suicide bombers can’t be
punished after the fact
For Preventive War
 Domestic analogy: we punish
people for planning to commit
crimes
 Evidence has to be convincing, but
standard is weaker for violent
crimes
 Individuals who can’t be deterred
can be punished in advance
Jus in bello
 What are the proper rules of
warfare?
 Walzer: That one may not shoot
someone in the act of
surrendering shows that there
are such rules
 Not everything is permitted
 “War is distinguishable from
murder and massacre only
when restrictions are
established on the reach of
battle.”
Jus in bello
 When and how can soldiers kill?
Walzer: This appears largely
conventional.
 Limitations of weapons (e.g.,
chemical and biological weapons
treaties); limitations on
questioning, torture
 But are these merely
conventional?
Treatment of prisoners
 235,000 American and British prisoners were
held by the Germans and Italians; 4% died
 132,000 were held by the Japanese; 27% died
 American aircraft machine-gunned Japanese
survivors swimming for shore; Americans often
shot surrendering Japanese
 Japanese doctors performed horrendous
experiments on prisoners
 Johnson: “moral confusion”
Rules of War
 Whom can they kill?
 War is a combat among
combatants
 Killing someone not currently
engaged in the business of
war is a crime
Rules of War
 Grotius: we may
defend ourselves
against allies of our
enemy
 We may attack even
when the attack
endangers innocent
lives
Von Clausewitz
 War is an act of violence
intended to compel our
opponent to fulfill our will
 Object is to disarm the
enemy
 War is a political act, “a
mere continuation of
policy by other means”
All’s fair in war
 “…in such dangerous things as War,
the errors which proceed from a
spirit of benevolence are the worst.”
 Nice guys finish last: “…he who
uses force unsparingly, without
reference to the bloodshed involved,
must attain a superiority is his
adversary uses less vigour in its
application.”
Virtue in war is not a means
 “…to introduce into the
philosophy of War itself a
principle of moderation would
be an absurdity.”
 Prussian General von Moltke:
“The greatest kindness in war
is to bring it to a speedy
conclusion.”
Hard Cases: Enemy Cities
 Roosevelt, 1939:
 Asked belligerents to refrain from the “inhuman
barbarism” of bombing civilians
 But that attitude didn’t survive for very long
Hard Cases: German Cities
 Churchill, July 8, 1940:
 “When I look round to see how we can win the
war I see that there is only one sure path. . . .
[T]here is only one thing that will bring [Hitler]
back and bring him down, and that is an
absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by
very heavy bombers from this country upon the
Nazi homeland.”
Hard Cases: German cities
 Historian Paul Johnson:
 “The policy . . . marked a critical stage in the
moral declension of humanity in our times.”
 Took about 25% of Britain’s war production;
killed 600,000 Germans
 Hamburg, night of July 27-28, 1943: 8001000° C over the city; destroyed half the
housing, 37.65% of the population killed
Hard Cases: Dresden
 February 13-14, 1945: over
650K incendiaries dropped
on the city
 Firestorm engulfed 8 square
miles, killed 135,000 men,
women, and children
 There were not enough
survivors to bury the dead
 Goebbels: “It is the work of
lunatics.”
 Pilots: “It was the only time I
felt sorry for the Germans.”
Dresden: before
Dresden: after
The Bombing of Tokyo
 March- July 1945:
100K tons of
incendiaries dropped
on 66 cities, wiping out
170,000 square miles
of densely populated
streets, killing 260,000
 March 9-10, 1945:
killed 83,000 in Tokyo,
injured 102,000
The Bombing of Tokyo
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Hard Cases: Hiroshima
 Oppenheimer, quoting the
Bhagavad Gita: “I am become
as death, the destroyer of
worlds.”
 August 6, 1945, 8:15am: out
of 245,000, 100,000 died
immediately, 100,000 died
subsequently
 August 9: Nagasaki, 75,000
killed
Utilitarian justification
 June 6, 1945: Japanese Supreme Council
approved plan to “prosecute the war to the
bitter end”
 10,000 suicide planes; 2 million troops on
the beaches; 4 million tropps, 28 million
militia in reserve
 Allies projected 1 million American
casualties, 10-20 million Japanese
Hiroshima: before
Hiroshima: after
Hiroshima: after
Hiroshima: after