Transcript Applied Ethics

Applied Ethics
Section 6
Ethics of War
1
Is Ethics Applicable to Warfare?


Some reject the applicability of ethics to wars,
citing the adage ‘All’s fair in love and war.’
Possibly the argument is that war is a no-holdsbarred contest, & that for that reason ethics is
irrelevant.
2
Rejection of the Inapplicability of Ethics to War


If ethics were inapplicable to war, there could be no
debates about whether the ferocity of war should be
mitigated, & to respect those who surrender by
treating them as prisoners of war.
There would be no point in the Geneva Conventions
on the humanitarian treatment of victims of war.
3
The Justifiability of Warfare

Even if it were true that war is a no-holdsbarred contest, there would still be room for
discussing whether it’s ever right to go to war,
& whether particular circumstances make
doing this justifiable.
4
Is War Ever Justified?
 Pacifists hold that it is wrong to meet violence
with violence, either because non-violence is
always the best way to restore peace &
reconciliation, or because acts of violence are
wrong in themselves.
5
Jan Narveson


Claims that pacifism is incoherent.
Those who hold that violence is wrong have to
believe that everyone has a right not to be a
victim of violence, & are therefore inconsistent if
they believe it is wrong to take steps to uphold
this right (see note 1 [last slide, this Section]).
6
However…



Pacifists need not accept such a right.
And those who do affirm it need not believe that
there is an obligation to take violent steps to
vindicate it.
So Narveson’s case for pacifism being incoherent
collapses.
7
Problems for Pacifism

Pacifism is held unable to cope with the
principle of Negative Responsibility, by which
agents are responsible for the impacts of their
omissions as well as their actions.
8
Catholic Teaching & Just War


Thomas Aquinas taught that warfare can be
just if certain conditions are satisfied.
These conditions have been supplemented by
subsequent writers, including Joseph C.
McKenna.
9
McKenna’s Conditions
1. Declaration of war by a legitimate authority.
2. Must have a just cause; the injury to be prevented or
rectified must be real & certain.
3. Its seriousness must be proportioned to the harms
generated by war.
4. Reasonable hope of success.
5. War must be entered into only as a last resort.
6. The intentions of the belligerent country must be right; for
example, a war of defence must not be conducted with the
aim of expansion or expropriation.
7. The measures used in war must be moral (see note 2 [last
slide, this Section]).
10
A Brief Analysis of the Conditions



The requirement of a declaration of war by a legitimate
authority needs modification to allow for the possibility
that sometimes a revolution or civil war might be justified.
McKenna’s conditions could be debated, for example by
asking whether they’re necessary or jointly sufficient.
Most of the conditions (such as proportionality & last
resort) are susceptible of a consequentialist defence, or
again of a Kantian one.
11
Measures Used in War

The requirement that the measures be moral
ones turns out to involve these measures being
proportionate to the goods to be attained or the
evils the war is to avert, & discrimination being
shown between combatants & non-combatants.
12
The Ethics of Conduct in War


Individual military personnel can be held
responsible for their actions in warfare.
They are not to be exculpated by appealing
to ‘superior orders’.
13
Geneva Conventions



Specify kinds of conduct agreed to be
unallowable in war.
Form part of the law of war.
Military training should ensure that ethical
expectations are clarified & understood.
14
Nuclear War

Any use of nuclear weapons would be
disproportionate to any goods to be attained
& also involve indiscriminate violence against
non-combatants, & would therefore be
morally wrong.
15
Deontological Argument Against Nuclear
Deterrence

Nuclear deterrence can be argued to be
wrong on the deontological basis that it is
wrong to intend to do what it is wrong to
actually do (that is, use nuclear weapons).
16
Nuclear Deterrence & Consequentialism

Some consequentialists hold that if such
deterrence prevents war, then the
readiness to use nuclear weapons that it
involves is justified.
17
Nuclear Deterrence & Consequentialism


Other consequentialists argue that the risks of nuclear
escalation & nuclear proliferation mean that nuclear
deterrence, at least on the part of the UK, is unjustified.
Implications for other powers.
Nuclear escalation: an arms race involving competition to outdo the
weaponry of others, escalating into nuclear war.
Nuclear proliferation: the holding of nuclear weapons being imitated by
other states with the necessary economic, scientific & technological
capacity.
18
Notes
1.
Jan Narveson, ‘Pacifism: A Philosophical
Analysis’, Ethics, 75, 1965, 259-271.
2.
Joseph C. McKenna, ‘Ethics and War: A
Catholic View’, American Political Science
Review, 54, 1960, 647-658.
19