HUM Is war ethical

docx

School

Thomas Edison State College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

101

Subject

Philosophy

Date

May 30, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ColonelGorillaMaster898

1 Is war ethical? Introduction

2 Some argue that War can be justified and considered ethical under certain circumstances. Just War Theory says War must meet specific criteria to be deemed ethical, authors say. They say there is no definitive answer to whether War is ethical. Authors: Perspectives on the morality of War vary from Utilitarianism to deontological perspectives. There is a case to be made for situations where peace means of conflict resolution have been ineffective or incapacity. War needs to be put into service so vital interests can be protected and safeguarded from aggression. Similarly, War could be the only means of achieving desirable change or defending innocent lives against grave injustice, tyrannies, and humanitarian crises. Various factors, such as the particular circumstances, available alternatives, cultural and ethical perspectives, values, and aims of parties in conflict, are also considered when assessing whether War is a necessary or unavoidable disaster. It is a subject that continues to be controversial and complex. Whether War is ethical is a complex and contentious topic that philosophers, ethicists, and scholars have debated for centuries. There is no definitive answer, as perspectives on this issue vary greatly. Some argue that War can be justified and considered ethical under certain circumstances. This viewpoint is often associated with the theory of Just War, which deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. Ethically justifying war and forms of warfare that can or may not be used is an aspect of just war theory, as well as historical elements or just war tradition, which deals with a traditional framework of norms and agreements throughout history in different wars. (Davis, 2016) According to the Just War theory, War may be deemed ethical if it meets specific criteria, such as being fought in self-defense, having a just cause, being a last resort when all peaceful means have been exhausted, and employing proportional force to achieve the intended goals. Jus Ad Bellem

3 The Latin jus ad bellum means "right to war" or "justice in the line of battle: and is used to state when there is reason to use armed forces. The concept of jus ad bellum is often associated with the Just War Theory, which provides a framework for assessing the morality of engaging in War. The theory says that specific criteria must be met for a war to be regarded as being just . Possessing just cause is the first and arguably the most critical condition of jus ad bellum (Davis, 2016). By the end of the medieval period, justification for War required cause (defense, retaking something wrongly taken, punishment of evil); good authority (temporal rulers with no superior); right intention (no hatred of the enemy, desire for vainglory or power, bullying, etc.); the goal of peace; and a reasonable hope of success. States should also use force only if it achieves better than harm and as a last resort. (Johnson & Lynch, 2013) Jus In Bello The principles of jus in bello, also known as the law of War or international humanitarian law, are rules and principles that govern the conduct of parties engaged in armed conflict. These principles are designed to mitigate the human suffering caused by War and promote the protection of civilians, combatants, and prisoners of War. The rules of conduct within War fall under the two broad principles of discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination applies to those legitimate targets in a war, while the principle of proportionality relates to whether or not there is moral justification for using force. The third principle, namely the responsibility principle, which calls for examining whether responsibility lies in War, can be added to the traditional two. Military necessity, Prohibition of unnecessary suffering, and protection of prisoners of War fall under this third principle. (Davis, 2016) These principles are the basis for an assessment of whether or not going to War is justified. These instruments are not enforceable, but they aid in shaping world norms and the Decision-Making process of States when

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 considering military action. It is important to note that jus ad bellum, which refers to the rules and principles governing the conduct of parties engaged in armed conflict, differs from Jus in Bello. The Jus in Bello also addresses the question of protecting civilians, the treatment of war prisoners, and prohibitions on certain weapons. Some argue that War leads to the loss of countless lives, including soldiers and civilians, causing immense suffering and grief for individuals and communities due to the violence and death. Taking a human life is generally considered morally wrong, and War amplifies this on a massive scale. War also destroys infrastructure, homes, and the environment. It displaces people, disrupts communities, and causes immense suffering. The physical and psychological scars of the War may last for generations, making it difficult for societies to recover. However, in extreme cases, War is for certain forms of defensive warfare, such as self-defense against imminent threats to protect innocent lives. There is a case to be made for situations where peaceful means of conflict resolution have been ineffective. War needs to be put into service so that vital interests can be protected and freeness safeguarded from aggression. No one has ever wanted a war of any kind. However, ignoring the possibility of War and not wanting it does not mean such a thing will not occur, as events in Europe from the summer of 1914 remind us. The outbreak of and collapse of the balance of power in Europe in the summer of 1914 is an example of how the elites, the military, and even diplomacy failed. The ability to build confidence and promote a peaceful balance of interest was lacking in foreign policy at that time. Instead, they fostered a deep mutual mistrust, depended on secret diplomacy, and had no qualms with destroying power rivalries at the cost of other parties. Instead of de-escalation and understanding, the lust for escalation prevailed in Berlin. At this point, War was inevitable. As long as some

5 seek power, War is a possibility and would be ethical for those fighting evil and protecting innocent lives Utilitarianism and Deontological Perspectives Whether it is morally right to kill on a massive scale in warfare is a highly contentious and complex ethical issue. The views of individuals and ethical frameworks differ on this issue. One contrasting perspective comes from a utilitarian standpoint, which feels that the morality of killing on such a large scale would be decided by the magnitude of its effects and outcomes. Utilitarianism calls on people to maximize their happiness and well-being. In this respect, it could be seen as morally justified if killing on a large scale could avoid more suffering or achieve substantial net benefits. Proponents of this view consider that, in contrast to the immediate damage incurred, it is essential to take account of the result. Another comes from a deontological perspective, emphasizing ethical duties and principles; killing on a massive scale would generally be considered morally wrong. The inherent value and dignity of every man's life are given the highest priority in deontology ethics systems, like Kantian ethics. Treating individuals simply as a means to an end cannot be morally permissible, although this could result in a beneficial outcome. The importance of each person's intrinsic worth and the obligation to respect their rights and autonomy is emphasized. Conclusion Whether War is ethical is a complex and contentious topic that philosophers, ethicists, and scholars have debated for centuries. Human beings use a variety of ethical perspectives and theories. Some argue that War leads to the loss of countless lives, including soldiers and civilians, causing immense suffering and grief for individuals and communities due to the violence and death. The physical and psychological scars of the War may last for generations,

6 making it difficult for societies to recover. However, there is a case to be made for situations where peaceful means of conflict resolution have been ineffective. Similarly, War could be the only means of achieving desirable change or defending innocent lives against grave injustice, tyrannies, and humanitarian crises. Various factors, such as the particular circumstances, available alternatives, cultural and ethical perspectives, values, and aims of parties in conflict, are also considered when assessing whether War is a necessity or an unavoidable disaster. Furthermore, other theories, such as Utilitarianism, call on people to maximize their happiness and well-being. Possessing just cause is the first and arguably the most critical condition of jus ad bellum (Davis, 2016). By the end of the medieval period, justification for War required cause (defense, retaking something wrongly taken, punishment of evil); good authority (temporal rulers with no superior); right intention (no hatred of the enemy, desire for vainglory or power, bullying, etc.); the goal of peace; and a reasonable hope of success. These instruments are not enforceable, but they aid in shaping world norms and the Decision-Making process of States when considering military action. Whether it is morally right to kill on a massive scale in warfare is a highly contentious and complex ethical issue still debated worldwide.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 References Deontology: What if Everyone Did That? – Academy 4SC . (n.d.). https://academy4sc.org/video/deontology-what-if-everyone-did-that/ Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level . Hürriyet Daily News. (2014, January 27). 1914 – The failure of and the need for diplomacy. Hürriyet Daily News . https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/1914--the-failure-of-and-the- need-for-diplomacy-61636 Johnson, J. T., & Lynch, T. J. (2013). JUST WAR THEORY. The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Military and Diplomatic History . https://ezproxy.peirce.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/ oupomad/just_war_theory/0?institutionId=6347 Just War Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . (n.d.). https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H6 Log In to Canvas . (n.d.). https://peirce.instructure.com/courses/7119/pages/click-here-for- instructions-and-readings-module-3?module_item_id=540873 Moseley, A. (n.d.). Just War Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H6 Olsthoorn, P. (2019). Utilitarianism and the Ethics of War, written by William H. Shaw. Journal of Moral Philosophy . https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-01602005 The ethics of warfare: Is it ever morally right to kill on a massive scale . (n.d.). University of Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/ethics-of-warfare- heather-widdows.aspx Utilitarianism: For the Greater Good – Academy 4SC . (n.d.). https://academy4sc.org/video/utilitarianism-for-the-greater-good/

HUM Is war ethical

Related Documents