Download WAR - Mr. Bull - A-Level and GCSE Religious Studies

“War is a
necessary
evil!”
WAR
APPLIED ETHICS
“War can
never be
justified!”
Just War
While warfare has never lacked it’s enthusiasts, most theorists
would sympathise with the sentiments of the poet Charles
Sorley, writing in 1915, a few months before his death, aged 21
at the battle of Loos:
‘There is no such thing as a just war. What we are doing is
casting out Satan by Satan.’
However, many would agree that, while war is always an evil,
some devils are worse than others. Yes, war is to be avoided if
possible, but not at any cost. It may be the lesser of two evils; the
motive may be so compelling, the cause so important, that
recourse to arms is morally justified.
In these circumstances, war can be just war.
An introduction
The philosophical debate over the morality or war, is just as
relevant today as ever!
The conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity in the 4th
century called for a compromise between the pacifist leanings of
the early church and the military needs of imperial rulers.
Augustine urged such an accommodation, which was taken up by
Aquinas, who developed the now canonical distinction between
‘jus ad bellum’ and ‘jus in bello’ (more about these two next!)
Debate in just war theory is essentially structured around these
two ideas.
Aquinas’ distinction
Jus Ad Bellum
Justice in the move
to war, the
conditions under
which it is morally
right to take up
arms. (Just War)
Jus In Bello
Justice in war, rules
of conduct once
fighting is
underway.
(Conducted Justly)
Jus ad bellum
Jus ad bellum refers to the rules concerning the declaration of war, and
includes:
• Proper Authority - War should be declared by the proper authority
• Just Cause - A nation should have a justifiable reason for declaring war
• Right Intention - The outcome being sought should be noble, generally to
bring about peace
• Last Resort - Every effort should have been made to resolve a conflict
diplomatically, without the use of force
• Proportionality - The damage caused by going to war must not be greater
than the good achieved
• Win Possible - there should be a good chance of success
• Comparative Justice - neither side will ever be without fault, but you need
to be more right than your opponents
These criteria have remained broadly unchanged for centuries, although specific details
have altered. For example, the UN Charter states that the UN should authorise any
use of force beyond repelling an immediate armed attack against a sovereign
territory. Some nations, however, do not recognise the UN's authority.
Jus in bello
A level text books describe this as 'Just
Method'. This includes:
• 'Discrimination' - that innocent people should not be
targeted. (Some commentators speak of 'civilians' or 'noncombatants' here)
• 'Proportionality' – Military force should be proportional to
the wrong endured and the outcome sought. Minimum force
should be used to achieve the desired ends
Jus in bello & Jus ad bellum
Clearly it is possible for a just war to be fought unjustly, and an
unjust war justly.
In other words, the requirements of jus ad bellum and of jus in
bello, in particular, overlap with the subject matter of
international law, and infringements on both winning and
losing sides should be in principle assessed as war crimes
(Geneva conventions)
Nuclear, Chemical and Biological
weapons
• Due to the nature of these
weapons, it is generally
agreed that the Jus in Bello
criteria above cannot be met
if chemical, nuclear or
biological weapons are used.
• In 2006, cluster bombs were
dropped on Lebanon. Only
40% of these exploded on
contact, leaving more than
half unexploded.
• Obviously a lot depends on
the nature of these weapons,
and the term 'nuclear
weapon' can apply to a broad
range of devices.
• Just like land-mines, these
are still causing serious
disability and death to
innocent people, especially
children, and will for many
years to come.
• Where weapons kill
indiscriminately, there are
real concerns.
• These sorts of weapons are
also seen as a violation of Jus
in Bello.
Criticisms of JWT
 All war is unjust
 The theory is unrealistic and
pointless because nations
decide to fight wars on the
basis of realism and strength,
not ethical theory.
 The theory carries no
guarantee that it will be
appropriately applied or that it
will be applicable to all
circumstances.
 The theory could be applied to
any war to make it appear to
be just, however both sides
will say that their claim to
justice is legitimate and yet
both claims cannot be equally
valid.
 The fact that there are
conditions in which a just war
can be fought means that the
war is more likely to be
fought.
 Terrorists are often
uninterested in ethical and
moral considerations and to
follow a moral way would
therefore put a nation at a
disadvantage when fighting
terrorists.
 Weapons of mass destruction
make the JWT unworkable.
To pass the exam you will need to;
• Not make up your opinion in advance. Each new conflict should be
looked at and judged according to the specifics of that conflict;
• Know the Just War criteria off by heart, and be aware of where these
criteria have come from;
• Be able to apply these in an objective way to the conflict you are looking
at. Too often, these criteria are simply used to justify a decision that's
already been made;
• Some scholars claim that the Just War criteria need to be updated - that
they simply don't apply in modern war-fare. You need to understand
why they say this, particularly post-9-11 and with the specific issue of
terrorism;
• As an ethics student, you need to understand what different ethical
theories would say about individual conflicts and modern warfare in
general.
NOT JUST WAR
Realism
 Realists are sceptical about
the whole project of
applying ethical concepts to
war.
 International influence and
national security are the
key concerns – real global
players play hard-ball,
morality is for wimps.
Pacifism
 Pacifists in totally contrast,
believe that morality must
hold sway in international
affairs. Unlike the advocate
of just war, military action,
for the pacifist, is never the
right solution – there is
always a better way.
Your Task
• Using the mind map of ethical responses to war, apply ‘just
war’ theory to the case studies.
• Detail what each of the different ethical theories would say
about both conflicts and modern warfare in general.