Module 12 Chapter 19 Wagerer (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Indian River State College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
PHI2630
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by CorporalKnowledge11738
Module 12 : Political Violence, Chapter 19 Reading Questions (M12A1)
Remember to review the Review Questions at the end of the chapter.
After reading Chapter 19, please respond to the following items below. Always use complete
sentences. Type your answers under each item and submit this whole document with your
responses.
A. Please define the following 3 main positions regarding the ethics of war:
1. Realism: (as applied to warfare) is the view that moral standards are not applicable to war,
which must be judged only on prudence, on how well war serves state interests.
2. Pacifism: is the view that war is never morally permissible. (The term is also often used to
refer to the broader idea that all violence is wrong or that all killing is wrong.)
3. Just War Theory: is the doctrine that war may be morally permissible under stipulated
conditions.
B. Choosing from the three main positions regarding the ethics of war, which position seems
best to you or which view do you take? Please explain by giving reasons for your view.
I believe that pacifism is the view I take. I agree with the belief that war is never morally
permissible because I believe that there are better alternatives to solving an issue than violence.
C. For just war theory, there are two main issues: the justice of going to war (jus ad bellum) and
the moral permissibility of acts in war (jus in bello). Please list and
explain
the requirements for
having a just war (jus ad bellum) and the requirements for the moral permissibility of acts in
war (jus in bello).
1. Jus ad bellum: The cause must be just (a morally legit reason that justifies going to war), the
war must be sanctioned by proper authorities (the war must be approved by a states
government), the war must be fought with the right intentions (the war must be waged for the
sake of the right cause not an illicit motive), armed conflict should be a last resort (all peaceful
means of sorting out differences must be tried first), the good resulting from war must be
proportional to the bad (the good expected to come from fighting must be weighed against the
evils that accompany war), and there must be a reasonable chance of success (futile wars
should not be waged.)
2. Jus in bello: Discrimination (Those fighting must distinguish between combatants and
noncombatants without targetting the latter), proportinality (the use of force should be
proportional), no evil means (certain tactics and weapons that are considered “evil” should not
be used), and benevolent quarintine (soldiers that surrender to enemies should be treaeted
accordingly.)
D. Read case 1 ("Intervention to Stop ISIS") in the Ethical Dilemmas section at the end of the
chapter. Please answer the following questions. Type your answers beneath the questions.
1. Was President Obama justified in ordering the armed intervention? Explain why or why not.
President Obama was justified in ordering the armed intervention because he did it to prevent
genocide in northwest Iraq.
2. If the Iraqi government had not required military action from the United States, would the
intervention be justified then? Explain why or why not.
No, the intervention would not have been justified because it would not have been any of his
business unless asked otherwise.
3. How would just war theory apply? Explain.
War just theory would apply because the cause is just, it was fought with the rigbht intent, and
there was no evil means,
E. Read case 2 ("War in Afghanistan”) at the end of the chapter. Please analyze the decision to
go to war in terms of the
jus ad bellum requirements
of just war theory.
Answer the following.
1. From the information given in the case, was the U.S. decision to engage in acts of war in
Afghanistan justified or not? Please explain.
It was justified because the cause was just, it was fought with the right intent, the good
resulting from war must be proportional, and there was a reasonable chance of success.
2. Which requirements were not met, if any?
Armed conflict was not a last resort.
3. Do you think that the US response to the September 11 attacks was a legitimate act of self-
defense? Why or why not?
I do believe that the US response to September 11 attacks were an act of self defense but it
could have been handled in a better way.
F. Considering arguments in the articles at the end of the chapter, and the definition of
terrorism given in the chapter, do you think that an act of terrorism can ever be morally
acceptable? Explain why or why not.
I do not think that an act of terrorism can ever be morally acceptable because violence should never be
the first answer. I believe that things this important should be talked about.
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