The morality of war

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

War is still a central element of the human experience. Human beings have been fighting with each other since prehistoric times, and people have been discussing the rights and wrongs of it for almost as long. And we all know that killing is a long-standing taboo. Philosophers from the ancient times have been asking the question: “Is it always a sin to go to war?” Well, let's try to consider this question. The article will be about just war theory. It is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers, and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure that war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: “right to go to war” (jus ad bellum) and “right conduct in war” (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war, and the second connected with the moral conduct within war. Traditional just war theory construes jus ad bellum and jus in bello sets of principles, satisfying which is necessary and sufficient for a war's being permissible. Jus ad bellum typically comprises the following six principles:

1) just cause: the war is an attempt to avert the right kind of injury;

2) legitimate authority: the war is fought by an entity that has the authority to fight such wars; 3) right intention: that entity intends to achieve the just cause, rather than using it as an excuse to achieve some wrongful end.

4) reasonable prospects of success: the war is sufficiently likely to achieve its aims; 5) proportionality: the morally weighted goods achieved by the war outweigh the morally weighted bads that it will cause; 6) last resort (necessity): there is no other less harmful way to achieve the just cause.

Typically the jus in bello list comprises:

• Discrimination: belligerents must always distinguish between military objectives and civilians, and intentionally attack only military objectives.

• Proportionality: foreseen but unintended harms must be proportionate to the military advantage achieved.

• Necessity: the least harmful means feasible must be used.

Some people argue that the Just War doctrine is inherently immoral, while others suggest that there is no place for ethics in war. Others still argue that the doctrine doesn't apply in the conditions of modern conflicts. The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it's actually a good thing. But you shouldn't think so about it. Just War theory postulates that war, while terrible, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.

Futhermore, the theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. Behind contemporary war theory there lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil.

The just war theory has a long history. The principles of a Just War originated with classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero and were added to by Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. But some sources prove that history of the just war theory begins in India. The Indian epic, the Mahabharata, offers one of the first written discussions of a “just war”. In it, one of five ruling brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified, and then a long discussion ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality (chariots cannot attack cavalry, only other chariots; no attacking people in distress), just means (no poisoned or barbed arrows), just cause (no attacking out of rage), and fair treatment of captives and the wounded. The war in the Mahabharata is preceded by context that develops the “just cause” for the war including last minute efforts to reconcile differences to avoid war. At the beginning of the war, there is the discussion of “just conduct” appropriate to the context of war. In ancient Rome, a “just cause” for war might include the necessity of repelling an invasion, or retaliation for pillaging or a breach of treaty. War was always potentially nefas (“wrong, forbidden”), and risked religious pollution and divine disfavor. A just war (bellum iustum) thus required a ritualized declaration by the fetial priests. More broadly, conventions of war and treaty-making were part of the iusgentium, the "law of nations", the customary moral obligations regarded as innate and universal to human beings. The quintessential explanation of Just War theory in the ancient world is found in Cicero's De Officiis, Book 1, sections 1.11.33-1.13.41. war taboo philosopher

Cicero argued that there was no acceptable reason for war outside of just vengeance or self defence, in which he included the defence of honour. He also argued that a war could not be just unless it was publicly declared and unless compensation for the enemy's offence had first been demanded. Cicero based his argument on the assumption that nature and human reason biased a society against war, and that there was a fundamental code of behaviour for nations.

Augustine was a 4th century Christian who lived in Algeria and Italy. Saint Augustine himself did not approve war. He believed that the only just reason to go to war was the desire for peace. Augustine accepted that there would always be wars. He thought that war was always a sin, and if there had to be a war, it should be waged with sadness. Besides, Augustine made it clear that individuals and states (or the rulers of states) have different obligations when it came to war or violence. He also stated that the Christians did not have the right to defend themselves from violence; however they could use violence if it was necessary to defend the innocent against evil. Augustine was much less concerned with how people should be treated during a war, because to him, physical death was not a particularly important thing. Nine hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas (12251274) laid out the conditions under which a war could be justified (Combining the theological principles of faith with the philosophical principles of reason, he ranked among the most influential thinkers of medieval Scholasticism):

• Firstly, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end--God.)

• Secondly, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for selfgain or as an exercise of power.(for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power (just cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e. lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace).

• Thirdly, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence. (right intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention). In “Summa Theologica”, Thomas proceeded to distinguish between philosophy and theology, and between reason and revelation, though he emphasized that these did not contradict each other. Both are fountains of knowledge; both come from God. A war is only a Just War if it is waged from the right motives. And a war is only a just war if there is a reasonable chance of success. In my opinion, it's a success when your aim is to convert your opponent; to win over their mind and heart and persuade them that your point of view is right. An important element is often to make sure that the opponent is given a face-saving way of changing their mind. Non-violent protest seeks a `win-win' solution whenever possible. In non-violent conflict the participant does not want to make their opponent suffer; instead they show that they are willing to suffer themselves in order to bring about change. Non-violence has great appeal because it removes the illogicality of trying to make the world a less violent and more just place by using violence as a tool.

Among the techniques of non-violent protest are: peaceful demonstrations; sit-ins; picketing; holding vigils; fasting and hunger strikes; strikes; blockades; civil disobedience. One of the most famous leaders of a non-violent movement was Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869 - 1948) who opposed British imperial rule in India during the 20th century. Gandhi took the religious principle of ahimsa (doing no harm) common to Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism and turned it into a non-violent tool for mass action. He used it to fight not only colonial rule but social evils such as racial discrimination and untouchability as well.Gandhi called it “satyagraha” which means `truth force'. In this doctrine the aim of any nonviolent conflict was to convert the opponent; to win over his mind and his heart and pursuade him to your point of view. Gandhi was firm that Satyagraha was not a weapon of the weak, “Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it always insists upon truth”.

Gandhi did not think that non-violence was a tool for those who were too scared to take up arms (an accusation that was sometimes made): «My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach non-violence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes».

Gandhi, Young India, 28 May 1924 Non-violence in Gandhi's thinking was a tool that anyone could (and should) use, and it was based on strongly religious thinking. You can get a clear understanding of what's involved in non-violence by looking at the instructions that Gandhi gave to followers of his Satyagraha movement in India.

• A Satyagrahi i.e. a civil resister will harbour no anger.

• He will suffer the anger of the opponent.

• In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.

• When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.

• If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.

• Non-retaliation excludes swearing and cursing.

• Therefore, a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.

• A civil resister will not salute the Union Jack, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.

• In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.

Speaking about non-violent we can't fail to mention about pacifism. There are several different sorts of pacifism, but they all include the idea that war and violence are unjustifiable, and that conflicts should be settled in a peaceful way. The word (but not the idea) is only a century old, being first used in 1902 at the 10th International Peace Conference.

People are pacifists for one or some of these reasons: religious faith, nonreligious belief in the sanctity of life, practical belief that war is wasteful and ineffective. Many believe that pacifism is more than opposition to war. They argue that it must include action to promote justice and human rights.

It's important to see the difference between the morality of pacifism as it applies to an individual, and the application of that morality to the behaviour of a nation-state. Not appreciating this difference can lead to real difficulties in discussing pacifism and non-violence. Pacifists are often thought of as totally opposed to killing, but they don't have to be. A pacifist can logically support euthanasia and abortion, although they would need to have thought their position through very carefully. We can emphasize different types of pacifism:

1) Absolute pacifism. An absolute pacifist believes that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. To stick to this principle consistently is hard. It views it as unethical to use violence to rescue an innocent person who is being attacked and may be killed, and this is not a comfortable moral position. Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically argue that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence.

2) Conditional pacifism. Conditional pacifists are against war and violence in principle, but they accept that there may be circumstances when war will be less bad than the alternative. Conditional pacifists usually base their moral code on Utilitarian principles - it's the bad consequences that make it wrong to resort to war or violence.

3) Selective pacifism. Other pacifists believe that it is a matter of degree, and only oppose wars involving weapons of mass destruction - nuclear or chemical and biological weapons - either because of the uniquely devastating consequences of such weapons, or because a war that uses such weapons is not `winnable'.

4) Active pacifism. Pacifists are heavily involved in political activity to promote peace, and to argue against particular wars.

During a war many pacifists will refuse to fight, but some will take part in activities that seek to reduce the harm of war; e.g. by driving ambulances, but other pacifists will refuse to take part in any activity that might support the war.

Not all pacifists are brave enough to act according to these beliefs and to refuse to fight, but many have, bravely choosing punishment, and even execution, rather than go to war. Nowadays most democratic countries accept that people have the right of conscientious objection to military service, but they usually expect the objector to undertake some form of public service as an alternative.

Contemporary just war theory is dominated by two camps: traditionalist and revisionist. The traditionalists might as readily be called legalists. Their views on the morality of war are substantially led by international law, especially the law of armed conflict. They aim to provide those laws with morally defensible foundations. States (and only states) are permitted to go to war only for national defence, defence of other states, or to intervene to avert “crimes that shock the moral conscience of mankind”. Civilians may not be targeted in war, but all combatants, whatever they are fighting for, are morally permitted to target one another, even when doing so foreseeably harms some civilians (so long as it does not do so excessively). Revisionists question the moral standing of states and the permissibility of national defence, argue for expanded permissions for humanitarian intervention, problematise civilian immunity, and contend that combatants fighting for wrongful aims cannot do anything right, besides lay down their weapons.Most revisionists are moral revisionists only: they deny that the contemporary law of armed conflict is intrinsically morally justified, but believe, mostly for pragmatic reasons, that it need not be substantially changed. Some, however, are both morally and legally revisionist.

All in all, in the XXth century, just war theory has undergone a revival mainly in response to the invention of nuclear weaponry and American involvement in the Vietnam War. Academics have turned their attention to just war once again with international, national, academic, and military conferences developing and consolidating the theoretical aspects of the conventions. Just war theory has become a popular topic in International Relations, Political Science, Philosophy, Ethics, and Military History courses.

Much recent work has used either traditionalist or revisionist just war theory to consider new developments in the practice of warfare, especially the use of drones, and the possible development of autonomous weapons systems. Others have focused on the ethics of non-state conflicts, and asymmetric wars. Very few contemporary wars fit the nation-state model of the mid-twentieth century, and conflicts involving non-state actors raise interesting questions for legitimate authority and the principle of Discrimination in particular.

As to the philosophical foundations of just war theory: the traditionalist and revisionist positions are now well staked out. But the really interesting questions that remain to be answered should be approached without thinking in terms of that split. Most notably, political philosophers may have something more to contribute to the just war theory debate. It would be interesting, too, to think with a more open mind about the institutions of international law (nobody has yet vindicated the claim that the law of armed conflict has authority, for example), and also about the role of the military within nation-states, outside of wartime. War. Sin or not, everyone should decide it for themselves. You have your conscience, just listen to it. One cannot deny that we need such discussions like about just war theory and others. It is very clear from these observations that the purpose of war ethics is to help to decide what is right or wrong, both for individuals and countries, and to contribute to debates on public policy, and ultimately to government and individual action. You know, I wish someday they'll give a war and nobody will come.

References

1. Aquinas St. Thomas. Politics and Ethics / St. Thomas Aquinas. - Oxford, University Press 1998. - 433 p.

2. Augustine St. City of God / St. Augustine. - Penguin, 1984. - 640 p.

3. Dockrill M. The Ethics of War / Michael Dockrill, Barrie Paskins. - London: Duckworth, 1979. - XII, 332 c.

4. Doppelt G. Walzer's Theory of Morality in International Relations // Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8(1). - 1978 - Pp. 3-26.

5. Norman R. Ethics, Killing and War / Richard Norman. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. - 256 pp.

6. Orend B. The Morality of War / Brian Orend. - Broadviewц2006. - 289 p.

7. Parry J. Civil Wars and Revolutions // Lazar and Frowe. - 2016. - Access Mode: doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199943418.013.22

8. Holmes. R.L. A Time For War? /Robert L. Holmes // ChristianityToday.com. [Electronic resource]. - Access Mode: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/septemberweb-only/9-17-55.0.html

9. Ryan C.Democratic Duty and the Moral Dilemmas of Soldiers / C.Ryan // Ethics, 122(1). - 2011. - Pp. 10 - 42.

10. Super User. Catholic Education Resource Center // Catholic Education Resource Center.

11. Walzer M. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations / Michael. Walzer. - New York: Basic Books, 2015. - 416 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru