EXTREME VIEWS ABOUT WAR

POLITICAL REALISM	PACIFISM
Military intervention is justified when it is in the best interest of a state that goes to war; the interests of other parties have no weight at all. This view is very similar to ethical egoism (can be treated as an extension of egoism to international arena)	Military intervention is never justified or permissible, not even as an act of self defense. The interests (and rights) of others have paramount weight. Superficially, the view is very similar to ethical altruism.

REASONS TO REJECT "POLITICAL REALISM"

• It is open to the objections analogous to those that are used to refute moral egoism.
• PR is not supported by any good reasons; possible (bad) reasons
  • A) moral nihilism (there are no moral values)
  • B) state "anarchy" -- states are not limited by moral values

  AN ARGUMENT AGAINST PACIFISM

  1) If pacifism is true (justified), then we must never perform any act that involves intentional violence or killing.
  2) Sometimes such acts are justified.
  _________
  3) So, pacifism is false (not true).

  McMahan and others think that pacifists are committed to the premise (1), and that the premise (2) is obviously true. So, they conclude, pacifism is not justified.

  NOTICE: Philosophers grant that the burden of proof is on someone who goes to war.
  But many philosophers maintain that this burden is sometimes met.

JUST WAR THEORY:

A set of conditions that A) justify the resort to war (jus ad bellum); and B) prescribe how war may permissibly be conducted (jus in bello). That is, Just War Theory is supposed to explain when to fight and how to fight.

JUS AD BELLUM:

1) Just cause: there must be actual or imminent wrong against the state.
Seizure, plunder were never recognized as providing "just cause." E.g., as Aristotle observed, "We should wage war for the sake of peace" (Politics, 1333a).
On the other hand, self-defense was recognized as providing the just cause (see United Nations Charter, 1945).
This included anticipatory causes (preventive wars) as well as collective self-defense (defense of others who were threatened or were under attack)

2) The component of authority: only states can be in war.
This condition states that it is not enough that you have a good reason to fight the war; there also must be civic authority (the state) behind the war effort. As St. Augustine has observed, the use of force by private persons is immoral, only states can use force.

3) Right intention: the state must ultimately aimi at peace (and not violence, death, destruction)

4) Proportionality: anticipated good must not be outweighed by bad.
A war cannot be justified unless the evil that results from war is less than the evil that can be expected to ensue if the war is not fought.

5) The last resort: If the just cause can be achieved by means other than war, then war for that cause is not morally justified, the parties must exhaust peaceful means.

6) Probability of success: (a rather strange condition, e.g., what would count as a sucess in a war when a country is attacted by ovewhelming power)

JUS IN BELLO

7) Proportionality (again): anticipated good must not be outweighed by evil

8) Discrimination: innocent people and noncombatants must not be killed or harmed.

1) - 8) are treated as individually necessary and jointly sufficient

SOME PROBLEMS FOR JUST WAR THEORY
Many of the above conditions have been challenged by ethicists.

Competent Authority, especially, were discussed extensively. It's true that war is a controlled used of force by persons organized in a functioning chain of command; that is, an isolated assassin cannot wage the war.
But it seems that a group of people can organized itself into army, and go to war, even if there no state authority behind this effort. Consider, e.g., a war to gain a liberation for the nation (e.g., The American Revolutionary War, or some guerrilla movements in Africa and South America, or Jewish Appraisal in Warsaw Ghetto (1943), directed against Nazis' attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish population).

The theoreticians discussing ethics of war proposed that parties must have "belligerent status" to be justified in waging war. For example, according to Geneva Conference, a state of war shall exist provided that "dissident armed forces or other organized groups . . . [are] under responsible command, exercise such control over part of its territory as to enable them to carry sustained and controlled military operations and . . . To implement the laws of war" (Protocol II, Article 1.1)

This may be still too strong a requirement. Many guerilla movement would not fulfill this condition (they do not have sufficient control over territory) and yet their actions may be justified.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT PACIFISM

There seem to be two kinds of pacifism: Absolute Pacifism (AP) and Moderate Pacifism (MP).
AP is committed to absolute prohibition of killing and harming humans.
MP is committed to prohibition of killing and harming during war, or perhaps, some kinds of war.

ABSOLUTE PACIFISM (AP)
1) Necessarily, all (acts of) violence against, and killing of, humans are morally wrong.
2) War involve such violence and killing.
________
3) Therefore, necessarily, war is wrong.

The premise 1) seems false. And so AP seems unjustified.

MODERATE PACIFISM (MP)
1) If an action or practice causes enormous harms to innocent parties, then it is morally wrong except if (A) we have no feasible alternative to this action/practice (i.e., the alternative that involves less harm) and (B) there are adequate reasons for continuing this action/practice.
2) Contemporary wars cause enormous harms to innocent parties.
3) There are feasible alternatives to wars.
____________
4) Contemporary wars are morally unjustified (wrong).

Defense of MP would have to hinge on empirical (non-philosophical) considerations. E.g., this sort of pacifist would argue that there are always feasible alternatives to war and that, given contemporary wars, the harms to civilians and innocent parties are inevitable.

Philosophy home

Stef's home page

Professional Ethics