Philosophy Club

Some Moral Issues about War

Introduction

Moral issues about war: What does "moral" mean?

Moral = concern for the well being of other people which is generalized and binding.

Realism: Moral Skepticism

Question: Are moral considerations relevant at all to the relations between states? Or do moral considerations not apply to big-power politics?

The moral skeptic asserts that morality applies to the relation between persons and not between states. Classical scholar Werner Jaeger:

"The principle of force forms a realm of its own, with laws of its own."

Realism: Laws of "force" (i.e. of big-power politics) are distinct and separate from the laws of moral life. In the realm of states all that matters is national interest.

Example: The Melian debate.

Anti-realism:

1. What nations do is determined by what governments do and this is determined by what is done by people in power – Presidents, Prime ministers and Cabinets, Generals, etc. Nations are not separate from people.
2. Important distinction: Moral motivation and moral assessment.
   People in power may not be morally motivated but their actions can be morally assessed (i.e. assessed by us, the citizens within the states).
3. Even if political leaders not morally motivated, citizens often are.

Not Fighting Wars

1. Appeasement
   Appeasement is the view which states that the only way to avoid war is to give in to aggression. This may apply to a nation bound by a treaty to defend another nation – the nation bound by the treaty may persuade the victim of aggression to give in to aggression in order to avoid conflict e.g. Czechoslovakia in 1939.
   
   The issue: Have to choose between (a) and (b).
   1. Failing to resist aggression may lead to further aggression.
   2. Appeasement avoids misery of war.
   
   
2. Pacifism
   Pacifism is the view stating that wars are absolutely immoral and therefore should not be fought at all. It is immoral to fight wars because this involves the killing of human beings, especially innocent human beings, and this is absolutely wrong.
   
   Absolute pacifism: War is wrong under any circumstances.
   
   Contingent pacifism: War may be justifiable under some circumstances, but as these are very remote the right policy is to avoid wars altogether.
   
   Questions:
   
   Is independence or self determination for states an ultimate value? If you can live a reasonably happy life in a country which is under the control of a foreign power, then does that matter? Or is it a case of "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees"? Is the misery of war better avoided at almost all costs, even at the cost of your independence?
   
   Example: Dutch in Indonesia.
   
   Is war the greatest evil? A pacifist policy may encourage aggressive nations. If it were possible to prevent the brutality of (e.g.) the Nazis, Pol Pot or of what occurred in Rwanda, then why not do so? Can this possibility be ruled out in principle?
   
   
3. Interventions Intervention consists in one state (group of states, UN, NATO, etc) intervening militarily in the affairs of another state.
   
   John Stuart Mill: States are self-determining political communities who must seek their own freedom – this can't be externally imposed. It is unfortunate if a state is ruled by a tyranny but freedom can only come from within. Self-determination must not be overridden.
   
   Are there (contrary to Mill) conditions under which military intervention is justified?
   1. When there is more than one political community within a state and which is struggling for independence. e.g. Albanians in Yugoslavia, Timorese in Indonesia.
   2. Counterintervention e.g. Iraq in Kuwait.
   3. Massive violation of human rights e.g. Cambodia.
   
   Questions
   
   Is it possible to have a morally consistent policy of intervention? Why intervene in (e.g.) Kosovo but not in Turkey on behalf of the Kurds? Who should intervene? UN, NATO, USA, neighbouring states?
   
   
4. War Convention and Non-combatants
   
   War convention: This is a set of rules and principles for conduct in war.
   
   One principle of war convention: Non-combatants must not be attacked.
   
   Who exactly are non-combatants during war? Are munitions workers non-combatants? Intelligence personnel? Workers supplying food for armies? Workers in factories producing army clothing?
   
   Is it permissible in wartime to bomb cities which contain military targets? What if large numbers of non-combatants are killed? What if bombing cities significantly reduces the length of the war? (Example: Hiroshima)
   
   
5. The Just War
   
   Is it possible to specify conditions under which it may be morally justified for a state to go to war?
   
   
   1. Jus ad bellum: justification for engaging in war.
   2. Jus in bello: justification for the way in which the war is fought.
   
   
   Conditions for a just war:
   
   
   1. Ad bellum conditions:
      1. Declared by a competent authority.
      2. Existence of just cause.
      3. Motivation:The presence of a right intention.
      4. Proportionality: Evil prevented by the war greater than misery produced by the war.
      5. Last resort.
      
      
   2. In bello conditions:
      1. Proportionality in means of war.
      2. Discrimination: Don't attack non-combatants.
   
   
6. Nuclear War
   
   Two main issues:
   
   
   1. Morality of actual use of nuclear weapons.
   2. Morality of threatened use of nuclear weapons i.e. morality of deterrence.
   
   Questions:
   
   Could the use of nuclear weapons ever be morally justified?
   
   If their use were never morally justified, can threats to use nuclear weapons be justified?

   R. Neurath