ethical theories on war Flashcards
Natural law?
1st pp -preserve lifewhich would jsutify going to war to defend others- has to be a last resort
depends on whether it takes more lives than it saves (has to be a jsut cause/proportanity)
criticise the way in which laws were fought with a lack of respect for God’s sacred life (Gensis 1:27) - becuase very life is sacred- emphais on LAST RESORT
4th pp- living in an ordered society- attack threatens the strucure and authoruty of a society- this justifies it
Catholic Aquians and Protestant grotius- conflic with balance in nature (god’s process)- force has to be proportional to effect (jus in bello)
Deontolgical -motive has to be right and virtous i.e. to save innocent lives
Why does antural alw put such an emphais pn living in an ordered society?
because order ion socety brings peace and harmoney.harmoeny brigns with it interactions of social classes>if it didn’t happen= chaos
Kant on war?
doesn’t support needlessly going to war
does support going to war in defence of others
like NL/Chrisitna eghtics- elives life has instrinisc value- should be treated with repsect
jus ad bellum- Kant is deontolgical- releis on duty (preserve life) + goodwill
cateogical imperigive can’t universislie killing but could universiel going to war onyl to defend others- roblem is cultral relativsm, governemnts with ulterior motives, disproportionate killing
2nd maxim- treating people as a means to an end- hard to jutify any war (respect for all human life) coud argue duty is mroe improtant if liberating members from an oppressed ruler
depends- if soldeirs ahve no vested interest in making the world a safer palce- they would be merely being used
problem- KAant not distinguishing duties (W.D Ross)
Kingdom of ends- argued this is the UN’[s purpsoe
Utilitarisnim on war?
end does justify the means (unlike the other ethical thjeories)
So as long as the intention is for the ‘greates good for he greatest number’ you don’t need a jsut cause
Bentham - calculate the hedonisic value for each nation involved>Act Utlitiriansim- judge each war seeprately- principle of utlity
happy for governemtn to make up a threat as lingas the result was a better world (didn’t have set rules- flexible- doesn’t condier the minority
Mill- argued the need to protect human’s civil liberties (consider the minortiy)-put rules in place whwre goverbemtn can’t lie becuase he says a world without a just cuase would be unstable
Prefernce Utlitaiirsnm-Singer-take into account everyone’s prefernces- see which owuld benefi the most people- peoples prferences can change
Absoliute pacifism?
never okay-ven in he defenc eof others
value of life is far too high- it always leads to worse reuslts
Conditional pacifism and selective pacifism?
accept there amy eb circumsatnes when its accpetable
lesser of two evils- usually base their moral ciode on utlitiairna principles- if the lives it saves otuweghs the lives taken
selective pacifism- depedns on the situationa dn the degree- only oppose wars of mass destruction ebcause of the uniquely devastaing consequences on human life e.g nucleur war
Active paciifism?
actively campign fro epace(marches, demsonatations)
Palastine0 jumped in front of solde=iers to stop them shooting at a peaceful march
acciompanhy children in threatened areas to school
logical case agaisnt paciifsm?
world is imeperfect- naturlaa nd moral evil
staes ahve a duty to protect their citiznes
doesn’t work against evil e.g. Nazis
Doesn’t matter they are arguing from a love of human life-doesn’t make them noble idealsits but a fialure of a moral obligation
Can’t b antional policy- onyl workls if both nations disarm
1st solutionn seek non-violent solutions- significan part of the UN
Reaslism argues that war..?
is a non-moral activity
killing/maiming may b wrong for indivudals (innate sense)
society needs governing laws-without them they would break down
mroals/ethics can’t be a priroty in war
no real auithority
nations aghve to lok after their own interests
the threat of war and war itsle fdoesn’t leave room for anythinelse
still try and treat priosoner-of-war well= value of human life is important
Chrisitn Relaism?
belive inn sacity of life
Jesus’ GOlden Rule and his teachings of violence
‘Put away your sword, those who live by the sowr die by the sword-
Reinhold- [bbok] ‘ Moral Man and Immoral Society
believes that God’s will requires us to be pro-active in the world
human nature is evil so froce is necssary to mainaitn society- everyone i ‘born with sin’
Pacifism is a heresay- love doesn’t guarantee vicotry]
‘If a man strieks you on one cheek, turnthe toher oen to hm also-Mark 5 but jesus did fight agaisnt jsutice
Individuals may be able to rise above self-interst but states can’t afford to do this
For Crisitna ehtics the amin problem of apcifism is?
conflcit betwent he God oft he Old Testament and his incrantion in the New Testament- Samuel 15:3 ‘ Go forth and kill the entire Armadelikite nation- women, chidklrene’
Numbers 31 ‘ So Moses saud arms some of your men and carry out the Lord’s vengence on them
NT - marked a change of peace (Mark 5)
St Pul expads on JEsus’ pacfiist teachings by extolling the virties of non-violence
‘Do not overcome evil with evil but overcoem evil with good’- Romans 12:17
Sicne inception of Protestinsim- denomiantions like Quakers who beluve in absoute oacifism is the way of Christ (Jesus with his arrest)
kingdom of God is not of this world but the members of it (Chrisitnas) should obey God
Cristism of Christian pacifists?
pacifism= surrender under agression lead to greater losses- sanctions on Iraq between 1sta nd 2nd gul war reuslted in greater loss of ifnant life
utopian (not relasitic in this world)
pacifism is not passive but ative (like MAartin Luthor King) involves courage>promtoes peace
Denominaions:
Baptist- duty to see peace(not pacifist)
Roman Catrholic- sancity of l ife but accet as last resort
Methodist- agaisnt war but accept it as alternative to genocide
