Moralische Dilemmas 2

Question 1

The moral psychology of killing in war

Moral Philosophy

Answer 1

o Normative discussion around the best-justified structure and principles for an ethical framework.

Question 2

The moral psychology of killing in war

Just war theory

Answer 2

o An ethical framework encompassing principles to justify or condemn the use of
armed violence and regulate military actions.

Question 3

The moral psychology of killing in war

Moral and Social Psychology

Answer 3

o Descriptive approach researching factors and mechanisms that may account for moral thinking and behavior.

Question 4

What is war?
Main defining characteristics

Answer 4

““war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other
means,”

• War is a confrontation between political units that use organized violence to manipulate the will of its adversary.

Those who participate in war act on behalf of their community or state, rather than as individuals.

Question 5

Two radical attitudes to war
Radical pacifism

Answer 5

• The prohibition of causing harm to others is universal and absolute.
• The only possible moral approach to war is to oppose it outright.

Question 6

Two radical attitudes to war
Political Realism

Answer 6

Violence is inherent to human nature.
* War is a driving force of history.
* War a realm beyond morality governed by its own rules.

Question 7

How can we think morally about war?
Confronting radicalism.

Answer 7

• A moral discussion cannot start from a narrow conception of the prohibition of harm, but must consider some exceptions.
• The question must be whether the protection of the rights of a community and its members legitimizes the use of armed violence.
• War is a social activity, subject to collective values, so it is also judged according to moral criteria.

Question 8

The rules of war are grounded in a common moral sense.

Answer 8

• Throughout history and in different cultures, people have made similar judgments about what is just, legitimate, or morally permissible in war.
• For centuries philosophers have also distinguished between wars waged in self-defense, in the name of peace and freedom, and those waged for self-interest or perverse ends.

Question 9

The ethical framework of war

Answer 9

• The Just War Theory encompasses a family of theories formulated throughout the history of moral
  and political philosophy.
• The just war theory s divided into two dimensions or sets of moral principles:
  o The jus ad bellum, which concerns the legitimacy of the declaration of war.
  o The jus in bello, which deals with the morality of the means used to wage war and the conduct of armed forces

Question 10

The Right to Make War and the Just Cause ( Jus ad Bellum)

Answer 10

• The rights of states in the international community are considered an extension of the fundamental rights of their citizens.
• States are justified in declaring war on any military threat or violation of their rights.

Question 11

The War Convention and the Morality of Killing ( Jus in Bello )

Answer 11

It prohibits any military method that cause intense and unnecessary suffering or have a highly devastating effect.
* The war must be limited to combat between combatants, excluding civilian population:

Question 12

Research on the moral judgment of killing in war

Answer 12

• Empirical research on the moral judgment of war aims to understand the psychological mechanisms that would explain the emergence, evolution and application of the ethics of war.
• It considers models that account for moral judgment in non- war contexts, while exploring the role of war-related factors and distinctions.
• Studies using experimental surveys to examine whether moral attitudes toward war actions are determined by factors underlying the debate on the ethics of war.

Question 13

Factors underlying the debate on ethics of war

Who is it permissible to kill?
The question of moral status in war and legitimate targets.

Answer 13

• Civilian immunity
• Moral equality of combatants

Question 14

Factors underlying the debate on ethics of war

When is killing permissible? Self-defense and side-effect harm.

Answer 14

Collective and individual self-defense killing
* The permissibility of collateral killing of civilians (Doctrine of Double Effect).
o The good results of the action must outweigh the bad.
o Harmful consequences must be an unintended side-effect of a legitimate action

Question 15

The Moral Grammar of War and the Emergence of the Principles of Protection of Civilians

Answer 15

• Cognitive-emotional mechanisms, such as empathy for innocent victims led to the emergence of principles of civilian immunity and proportionality in war.

Question 16

Attitudes about just cause and military conduct

Answer 16

*
Colombian participants (including fighters from guerrilla and paramilitary groups) perceived wars fought to defend fundamental rights as just wars, and wars fought for economic purposes as unjust wars.

• Most participants disagree with practices that violate human rights, while accepting military methods involving confrontations between combatants.

Question 17

Principle of discrimination between civilians and combatants:

Answer 17

*
Overall higher disapproval of attacks by an aggressor
state on civilians not involved in the war, compared to attacks on other types of victims.
When asked about an action committed by the in- group (the Israeli army), disapproval of attacks drops significantly.

• People consider it inadmissible to treat civilians as military targets. The permissibility to kill soldiers depends on the cause of the war it serves.

Question 18

Principle of discrimination and self-defense

Answer 18

o The justice of the war is relevant for judging the permissibility of killing among soldiers.
o People judged as equally impermissible the killing of civilians from both sides.
o Killing in self-defense was evaluated more positively than killing in other circumstances.

Question 19

Influence of war in moral judgments

Answer 19

• The researchers manipulated the identity of the victims to be sacrificed (in-group vs. out-group).
• People tend to judge sacrifice in war as more acceptable than sacrifice in peace, morally distinguishing the actions of the switch and the footbridge scenarios in both situations.
• People tend to judge more favorably the sacrifice of one out-group person to save five in-group persons.

Question 20

Causal factors in moral judgment of war

Answer 20

o Differencesin the locus of
intervention were not
relevant for
evaluating the
permissibility of
harming soldiers.

o Peopledidnotrelyona categorical distinction between civilians and soldiers. Instead, they considered the specific situation of the victims in each scenario.

Question 21

Take-Home Message

• Moral psychologists are interested in providing a descriptive map of the … judgment of war.
• This research integrates debates on the …. framework of war and models and methods of experimental moral psychology.
• Findings from different studies support the conclusion that people’s intuitions about war are consistent with some principles of… (e.g., civil immunity or the doctrine of double effect).

Answer 21

• Moral psychologists are interested in providing a descriptive map of the moral judgment of war.
• This research integrates debates on the ethical framework of war and models and methods of experimental moral psychology.
• Findings from different studies support the conclusion that people’s intuitions about war are consistent with some principles of jus in bello (e.g., civil immunity or the doctrine of double effect).

Question 22

Intergroup conflict and mass killing

Answer 22

A different perspective in social psychology dealing with war has been interested in accounting for aggressive behavior, violence, and norm deviance.
* Some researchers have been interested psychological mechanisms underlying mass killing, such as the Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide and other massacres of the second half of the 20th century.

Question 23

Justification for violence and war atrocities

Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement

Answer 23

Actions committed in the war involve an adherence to four types of belief
o There are moral reasons or positive consequences that justify them (e.g., self-defense, stopping terrorists).
o It is possible to reject the responsibility for war (e.g., considering that there is no alternative but to resort to arms).
o Negative consequences such as the destruction or killing of innocents are underestimated or ignored.
o The victims are dehumanized or blamed for the war.

Question 24

Justification for violence and war atrocities
Cognitive dissonance

Answer 24

• When people face moral dilemmas involving harm to others, there is a conflict between two different beliefs or cognitions about the action to be taken.
• People resort to various coping strategies, e.g., giving up attitudes, intentions or desires, or by resorting to physical means of venting.

Question 25

Dehumanization, infrahumanization and genocide
Dehumanization and Mass killing

Answer 25

• First accounts of the phenomena of dehumanization and infrahumanization emerge as part of qualitative studies on the psychology of mass killing.
  *
  *
  Extreme dehumanization help to subvert inhibitions, relaxing the moral restrictions to kill and implied the denial of the individual identity and community of the other.
  Opotow (1990) describes dehumanization as a broad form of “moral exclusion” that involves “repudiating the humanity, dignity, capacity to feel, and right to compassion of others.”

Question 26

Infrahumanization and group conflict

Answer 26

*
Infrahumanization is a subtle form of dehumanization, which consist of attributing less human characteristics to outgroups (e.g. complex emotions, intelligence or moral values.
Throughout history and across cultures, people tend to view their in-groups ethnocentrically, reserving full humanity to the in-group and regarding some out-groups as subhuman.
A high degree of group identification may lead to justifying or motivating the use of violence against members of other groups, while reducing responsibility for the crimes committed.

Question 27

Dehumanization and mind perception

Answer 27

*
All human beings possess inherent worth and value (e.i., moral status) because they exhibit two kind of mental capacities
o Agency (i.e., they can think, act autonomously and make decisions).
o Psychological experience or sentience (i.e., they can feel pleasure and pain, have preferences and desires).
Dehumanization is the representation of human beings as non-human objects or animals. It involves the denial of any of this capacities.

Question 28

Dehumanization and animalization

Answer 28

Haslam’s (2006) dual model establishes two distinct senses of humaness:
o Human uniqueness ( i.e., attributes that distinguish humans from (nonhuman) animals).
o Human nature (i.e., attributes that distinguish humans from inanimate objects, such as robots or automata).
The denial of uniquely human attributes leads to “animalization,” a form of dehumanization often oriented toward outgroups.

Question 29

Take-Home Message
* Some research in social psychology has been interested in understanding extreme …. and norm deviation in … contexts.
* Some models provide insights into the psychological factors or mechanisms underlying the justification of … and mass killing.
* The dehumanization and infrahumanization of people in out- groups contribute to the relaxation of … restraints against causing harm to others and the reduction of moral responsibility for crimes committed by in-group members.

Answer 29

Take-Home Message
* Some research in social psychology has been interested in understanding extreme violence and norm deviation in war contexts.
* Some models provide insights into the psychological factors or mechanisms underlying the justification of atrocities and mass killing.
* The dehumanization and infrahumanization of people in out- groups contribute to the relaxation of moral restraints against causing harm to others and the reduction of moral responsibility for crimes committed by in-group members.