War, Peace and Justice

Question 1

How does the United Nations affect how war is fought?

Answer 1

The Just War criteria talks about ‘proper authority’. In the past, this has referred to the ruling authority of a nation state. Now many people think that wars should only happen with UN approval.

Question 2

How are innocents in warfare defined?

Answer 2

The Just War Theory says that innocent people should not be targetted. However, military leaders have long sought to include a very narrow definition of ‘innocents’. Various alternative definitions have been used, such as non-combatants, but no agreement is reached. This may be because many military leaders believe that the end justifies the means, and that it is actually acceptable to target innocent people if it means the war will end sooner.

Question 3

Who was the originator of the just war theory?

Answer 3

Augustine. His thinking was developed by Aquinas and then more recently by other Catholic theologians.

Question 4

Why did Augustine develop the Just War theory?

Answer 4

When the Roman Empire became Christian, Augustine had to convince a pacifist religion that it was sometimes necessary to go to war.

Question 5

What does Jus ad Bellum mean?

Answer 5

Jus ad bellum refers to the rules concerning the declaration of war

Question 6

What does the Jus ad Bellum include?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Which three conditions of Jus ad Bellum did Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas come up with?

Answer 7

1) There must be authorisation form a legitimate authority; emperors were seen to be divinely appointed and thus were a legitimate authority
2) There must be a just cause for going to war
St Thomas Aquinas later added:

3) There must be a right intention

Question 8

What are the problem of the three conditions?

Answer 8

The idea that the feudal structure of society is divinely ordained does not hold with modern democracy. Could Hitler or Saddam Hussein for example be classed as a legitimate authority?
• Determining what constitutes a just cause to go to war is problematic. For example, the mistreatment of Germany after the First World War appears to justify the Second World War.
• In almost all cases, both sides will claim the right intention on the grounds that they consider it is their ‘right’ to go to war

Question 9

Who added the last four conditions to Jus ad Bellum?

Answer 9

In the 1970’s US catholic bishops set out their own views on just war theory and built upon the foundations set by Augustine and Aquinas.

Question 10

What does Jus in Bello mean?

Answer 10

Refers to the rules of just conflict and how a just war should be fought

Question 11

What are the conditions of Jus in Bello?

Answer 11

‘Discrimination’ - that innocent people should not be targetted. As explained in the definitions of key terms, some commentators speak of ‘civilians’ or ‘non-combatants’ here
‘Proportionality’ - as above, that military force should be proportional to the wrong endured and the outcome sought. Minimum force should be used to achieve the desired ends

Question 12

What is the issue with the conditions of Jus in Bello?

Answer 12

Firstly, those concerned with the proportionality with which the war is fought overlook the millions that die annually due to third-world debt in proportion to the vast amounts of money spent on warfare
Secondly, drawing a line that distinguishes an innocent civilian from the initiating minority in power directly responsible for war is difficult. And in any case, those believing they are going to war on justified grounds will consider themselves guiltless. Who can judge which side is guilty?

Question 13

What weapons are seen as a violation of Jus in Bello?

Answer 13

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. Obviously a lot depends on the nature of these weapons, and the term ‘nuclear weapon’ can apply to a broad range of devices. Where weapons kill indiscriminately, there are real concerns.

Question 14

What happened in the case study of the Gulf War?

Answer 14

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN authorised a military response. The war was swift and brutal, with over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed (according to the US- more according to other sources). The US claimed that smart bombs meant fewer civilian deaths, whilst others claim that only a minority of bombs hit their targets. Although there were heavy casualties during the war, far more civilians died in the following decade of sanctions–the UN estimates between 500,000 and 1.2 million children died between the two Gulf Wars due to hyperinflation, widespread poverty and malnutrition.

Question 15

What happened in the case study of the Iraq war?

Answer 15

The war in Iraq that began in 2003 (and finished in 2011) was far more controversial than the earlier conflict. A million people took to the streets in London to protest against plans to go to war. The UN had not made a further resolution supporting a second invasion, and weapons inspectors had failed to find conclusive proof of weapons ofmass destruction. Many critics saw Iraq as a mis-judged response to 9/11, motivated by greed for oil, and certainly
not the last resort. The death toll was higher than in the first conflict, with estimates between 100,000 and 1,000,000 violent deaths.

Question 16

What happened in the case study of Libya?

Answer 16

Pro-democracy protests in February 2011 led to hundreds of deaths, sparking civil war. International military intervention in March 2011 followed a UN Security Council resolution allowing“all necessary measures” to establish a no-fly zone. Col Gaddafi was killed in October, and fighting ended. Estimates of deaths range from a few thousand to 30,000. Many see the intervention as an example of the UN’s
policy of “responsibility to protect”. Critics say that NATO was responsible for unnecessary deaths of civilians.

Question 17

What happened in the case study of child soildies?

Answer 17

30,000 child soldiers are being used in the Congo. Many under the age of 10. 1/3 are girls. Most were abducted from their villages. Shot if they say no. Girls often end up as sex slaves. 1/3 will never be reintegrated into their communities.

Question 18

What happened in the case study of the Geneva convention where it was manipulated?

Answer 18

Guantanamo Bay– people arrested and detained without trial. Torture–Bush denied that ‘water-boarding’ is torture, but many have criticised this. Other complaints include sexual degradation, religious persecution, forced drugging, torture with broken glass, barbed wire, cigarettes.

Question 19

What is the issue with recruitment?

Answer 19

Fahrenheit 9-11 showed recruiters making false and misleading claims to recruit primarily poor, black youths to join the army. Many see them as ‘cannon fodder’, and feel that the support given to veterans, the families of dead soldiers etc. Is very poor.

Question 20

What is the case study of Martin Luther King in terms of pacifism?

Answer 20

Martin Luther King is an excellent example of someone who stood up against war–
he advised his congregation not to support the Vietnam War. He also used peaceful methods of protest with great effect. He did not use violence even when his home was bombed. He felt you could challenge injustice effectively by standing up for
what you believe in without resorting to violence.

Question 21

What is the issue with landmines in the case study?

Answer 21

Now called IEDs (improvised explosive devices), these are anti-personnel and anti
-vehicle weapons that often remain around for years after the conflict has finished. They kill indiscriminately. The Ottawa Treaty to prohibit their use has been signed by 158 nations. There are other indiscriminate devices (like cluster bombs) still widely
used

Question 22

What happened in the case study of Darfur?

Answer 22

In Darfur, over 300,000 have died (according to the UN–most from diseases) and millions displaced. The UN called it ‘war crimes’ but without the ‘intent to commit genocide’. The problems are complex, both racial and religious tensions, as well as issues to do with oil and poverty.

Question 23

What happened in the case study of Hiroshima?

Answer 23

The 2 atomic bombs killed 100,000s. The decision to drop the bombs was made on pragmatic grounds, as more would have died if the war had continued. Within a week of the second explosion, the Japanese surrendered. Some argue that the 1.6 million Soviet troops would have brought about a surrender.

Question 24

What biblical verses are against war?

Answer 24

” Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it”.- Psalm 34v14
“And he will be called a Wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end.”
-Isaiah 9:6-7
“They will beat their swords into plough shares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more.”- Micah 4:3
“You shall not murder.”- Exodus 10:13

Question 25

Why would Kant support the Just War theory?

Answer 25

Due to the principle of Universalisability. A rational person would agree that wars should not be fought without a just cause, and must be declared by the appropriate authority. It makes sense to say that innocent people should not be targeted, as I would not want to be targeted myself. In fact, all of the Just War Criteria might be supported by a Kantian.

Question 26

What would Kant think of soldiers (Link to child soldiers) ?

Answer 26

Kant would disagree with mercenaries–
people who fight for any country that pays. Such people are merely being used (or using themselves) as a means to an end. However, a soldier fighting for his own country may be treated as an end in himself if he benefits from the freedoms fought for, is well paid and looked after. In the case of child soldiers, proper care would mean education rather than front-line fighting, so Kant opposes child soldiers.

Question 27

Why would Kant support human rights (link to Geneva convention)

Answer 27

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights happened in 1948, so before then there were no human rights. It is logically possible to imagine a world where people are arrested without charge and tortured. However, any rational agent imagining themselves being arrested without charge would be against having such a rule–
it is a contradiction of the will, because
we would not want to be treated that way

Question 28

What does Kant think of recruitment and forced conscription?

Answer 28

If there is such a thing as morality, we must have free will. Kant says ‘Ought implies can’, so it would be wrong to say I ought to do something if I am not free to choose. Critics of Bush say that people in poorer parts of
America with high unemployment had no other option but to sign up. Kant is against forced conscription, as people are not freely choosing to become soldiers

Question 29

What would Kant’s view on pacifism be?

Answer 29

You might think that Kant would be a pacifist, as it makes perfect sense if everyone behave that way. However, we need to ask how Kant would have responded to Hitler’s attempts at world domination. One option is to allow such dictators to do what they choose–
that doesn’t work well as a universal law. The good will does its duty, following the rational path. Many Kantians see this as requiring us to fight in self defence and defence of others.

Question 30

What does Kantian ethics say of genocide (link to Darfur) ?

Answer 30

All ethical theories condemn genocide, but in practice no-one stopped the Rwandan
genocide, and 300,000 have already died in Darfur. Would we want a law of nature where people allowed genocide or fought it? If you imagine being a victim of genocide, we would clearly want someone to step in and help us. Kant’s theory would demand that the UN (Kant’s idea–a League of Nations) should act to prevent genocide.

Question 31

What does Kantian ethics say about landmines?

Answer 31

Kant believes we can work out moral rule
s by just sitting in a chair and thinking about it. Landmines may be used in a war and remain active for decades of peace that follow. This results in innocent children losing limbs or lives long after the conflict finishes. Any rational person can see
that these sorts of indiscriminate weapons that kill innocent people are wrong.

Question 32

How would Kantian ethics view Hiroshima?

Answer 32

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 220,000 innocent people were killed to bring an end to the war. What if we made this killing of innocents a universal law? We would all be targets, and there would be no-one left to fight. The man responsible for the explosions, Oppenheimer, famously said “I am become death, destroyer of worlds”. Kant would concur–by acting in this way, you have created a standard of behaviour that amounts to total annihilation.

Question 33

What does preference Utilitarianism say about Just War theory (link to Iraq war)?

Answer 33

Singer’s Utilitarianism focuses on fulfilling
people’s preferences .Rather than requiring a Just Cause or Proper Authority, he would look at people’s interests. Singer is worried that we tend to be more concerned with our own interests than those of, say, the Iraqis. Having a Just Cause is not a reason to go to war. In all cases, you should do the things that are in everyone’s best interests.

Question 34

What would Mill’s Utilitarianism think of young soldiers (link to child soldiers)?

Answer 34

In the Congo, child soldiers are employed by militia, and made to do terrible, dehumanising things like raping enemy women. However, Britain allows children of 16 to sign up, and will send 17 year olds to fight. This makes use of their strength and youth, and increases the number of troops available. Mill would have a problem with this, though, as the alternatives to take them later, allowing them a better education and access to higher pleasures.

Question 35

How would Utilitarians regard human rights (like in Geneva convention)?

Answer 35

The Geneva Conventions set out how to treat prisoners of war, and do not allow the torture of prisoners. The UNDHR also rules out torture. However, the principle of utility allows that torturing an individual may lead to the greater good. This is no doubt the reasoning that justified Guantanamo Bay. Rule utilitarians may disagree, pointing to the horrors of Abu Ghraib as an example of the consequences of allowing the ill treatment of prisoners of war.

Question 36

How would Utilitarians view recruitment?

Answer 36

Bentham, often seen as an Act Utilitarian, would support conscription in some cases, as it may be necessary to achieve the greater good. Mill defended individual liberty, making him more like a rule utilitarian. He would have resisted forced conscription, despite the fact that it might lead to the greater good. This aspect of Mill’s thinking appears contradictory, but
could be justified from a rule utilitarian perspective.

Question 37

How would Utilitarians view pacifism?

Answer 37

Some pacifists disagree in principle with the idea of war. Utilitarianism is teleological, so will look at the consequences of going to war to see if it is right. Some utilitarians would also be pacifists if they believed that the consequences of war in the modern world will always be negative. Non-violence was effective for Ghandi and Martin Luther King, so a utilitarian maybe attracted to non-violence because it works.

Question 38

How would Utilitarians view genocide (link to Darfur) ?

Answer 38

The more powerful nations may be able to prevent huge numbers of deaths in genocides, but a very careful calculation is needed. This includes the extent of the genocide (how many lives) as well as the number that might die in stopping the genocide, the certainty (how certain it is that these deaths will occur) as well as the likelihood of the success of any intervention. Singer believes any such interventions should go through the UN.

Question 39

How would Utilitarians view landmines?

Answer 39

An Act Utilitarian will be open to using whichever weapons are most effective in any given confrontation, and this is most likely the thinking that led Israel to send cluster bombs into Lebanon. Rule Utilitarians would ask about whether a law restricting
some types of weapons might lead to the greater good. If it was agreed that indiscriminate weapons should be banned, a rule utilitarian would be committed to not using such weapons.

Question 40

How would Utilitarians view Hiroshima?

Answer 40

The Utilitarian calculations need to treat all people equally, and enemy soldiers must not be seen as of less worth than our own. To justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where 220,000 died, there must have been a good chance that more people than this would have died if the bombs hadn’t been dropped. In fact, the US were ready to drop another 7 such bombs, as they were so convinced of the prolonged loss of life through war if they did not.

Question 41

How would virtue ethics regard the Just War theory?

Answer 41

Aristotle would have been happy that decisions of going to war be left to the wise, educated leaders of a country. Wisdom will lead to the Just War criteria. It makes sense that war should only ever be a last resort, and that you should only fight if it
is possible to win. All of the criteria are reasonable, and there is a lot of support for the criteria from people of all backgrounds. The criteria can be reached at by a wise person using reason.

Question 42

What would Maclntyre say about child soldiers (virtue ethics)?

Answer 42

MacIntyre says that to understand people’s values, you have to understand the context. For example, in the UK you are treated as an adult from 18, so recruiting soldiers at 16 seems to not fit. In the Congo they recruit much younger, but a lot of children start work younger and don’t go to school. These facts should influence our understanding of the moral principles at work.

Question 43

How would virtue ethics view human rights (like to Geneva convention)?

Answer 43

Aristotle’s view of a good soldier was of a person whose character was so well-formed that their courageous nature would lead them into battle against corrupt dictators. The inhuman behaviour of soldiers in Abu Ghraib shows how far from Aristotle’s ideas
we are. Eudaimonia involves development of all virtues, such as nobility, justice, courage, patience etc. This means having respect for all people’s human rights.

Question 44

How would virtue ethics view recruitment?

Answer 44

Aristotle differentiated between people who love pleasure (live for themselves), people
who love honour (living for others) and people who love contemplation (living for
knowledge). Soldiers should want to die honourably according to Aristotle. He said that “mercenaries prove cowards and when the danger is too great… they are the first to flee”. It is wrong to coax people to fight through pay. However, it should be noted that in Greek society warfare was an accepted duty of all men– an early form of conscription

Question 45

How would virtue ethics view pacifism?

Answer 45

Aristotle said “We make war that we may live in peace.” He would not have supported
pacifism. E.g. Anger is one of the spheres of moral virtues, and the golden mean applies.
This means being angry at the right time, not just to a specific degree. Excessive anger, or irascibility, means being easily angered. However, anger in the face of injustice, rape, murder etc. may be entirely appropriate. ‘Good temper’ doesn’t mean never getting angry.

Question 46

How would virtue ethics view genocide (like it Darfur) ?

Answer 46

Another example of a moral virtue is courage. Aristotle thought that tyranny was the worst form of government. He believed Courage was one of the cardinal virtues. He may have supported the conflict in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He would have been far more likely to see the prevention of genocides in Darfur and Rwanda as courageous and noble

Question 47

How would virtue ethics view the use of landmines?

Answer 47

Justice requires treating all people fairly. Any weapon that is indiscriminate will lead to
civilian fatalities. Whilst innocent people di
e in every war, using weapons like landmines is similar to targeting individuals. Aristotle would see this as unjust

Question 48

How would virtue ethics have viewed Hiroshima?

Answer 48

Eudaimonia means happiness in the sense of ‘human flourishing’, and if this is achieved for a whole community, that is even better. It could be argued that the bombs dropped on
Hiroshima were necessary for the international community to move forward and ‘flourish’. Many historians accept that the war would not have ended if the bombs had not beendropped. However, Hiroshima cannot really be said to have led to ‘human flourishing’

Question 49

How does situation ethics view the Just war theory?

Answer 49

The Just War criteria, created by Augustine, Aquinas and the Catholic Bishops, lays down the necessary prerequisites for a war to be justified, all of which must be met. Situation Ethics rejects these rules. For
example, Just Cause. A country must have done something to justify being attacked e.g. developing WMD, and it must be the Last Resort. For Situation Ethics, this is not required, as bringing about peace in an area may be the most loving thing.

Question 50

How would situation ethics view child soldiers?

Answer 50

The Rights of a Child state that children should not be used as soldiers. These rights are seen by many as being intrinsically good. Situation Ethics rejects this–only love is intrinsically good. As such, a 15 year old child might give his life fighting for freedom in his country, and Situation Ethics would support this if it was the most loving thing.

Question 51

How would situation ethics view human rights (link to Geneva convention)?

Answer 51

After the horrors of WWII, it was decided that there should be standards for how prisoners of war are treated. For example, torture is never fair or just. Situation Ethics thinks that by making the world as good as we can, by helping as many people as we can, we make the world more just. This may mean sacrificing individual liberties in some cases, even torturing terrorists. Justice isn’t treating everyone the same, it’s helping as many people as possible

Question 52

How would situation ethics support the exploitation of poor communities in recruitment?

Answer 52

Critics of George W Bush claim he exploited poor black communities where unemployment was high by offering young people a career in the army, then sending them to Iraq. Kant and Natural Law would support this claim. Situation Ethics is more pragmatic, recognising that you need to find a solution if there aren’t enough soldiers. This system works, but many claim it is unfair.

Question 53

How would situation ethics view pacifism?

Answer 53

Situation Ethics sees people as more important than rules. Pacifists use the Ten
Commandments to argue that it’s wrong to kill, but Situationists believe that killing to
protect people may be right. Other
Situationists may be pacifist, believing that it is more effective in achieving peace (MLK was very effective with non-violence), but a Situationistwill not be in principle against war, they may just believe it doesn’t work
in practice
.

Question 54

How would situation ethics respond to genocide (link to Darfur)?

Answer 54

This self-sacrificial love for all people would have driven Situationists to take action in
Rwanda to prevent the genocide, and Situationists campaign for a military response in Darfur where 300,000 have died. They would not necessarily wait for UN backing. Agape demands that we love others as we love ourselves, and would lead Situationists to support fighting to save the lives of others.

Question 55

How would situation ethics view landmines?

Answer 55

Cluster bombs, with 40% left unexploded, were recently used by Israel. A situationist may have criticised Israel, but they would decide on which weapons to use on a case-by-case basis. Landmines aren’t intrinsically wrong, it would depend on the individual circumstances.

Question 56

How would situation ethics view Hiroshima?

Answer 56

Terror bombing killed 60,000 in Dresden. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 220,000 people. Kantians and Natural Law theorists see the targeting of innocent people as an absolute wrong. Situationists say that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. In these cases, the killings may have ended a war that would otherwise have killed far more people.

Question 57

How would Natural Law view the Just War theory?

Answer 57

Aquinas contributed to the Just War theory.
He believed that absolute moral principles
governing when it is appropriate to use military force could be reached through the use of reason. The Just War criteria have been accepted by countries around the world, and have a firm rational basis. There are discussions about updating the principles in light of terrorist threats, but the theory itself hasn’t been seriously challenged in hundreds of years.

Question 58

How would Natural Law view child soldiers?

Answer 58

The primary precepts suggest humans should live in an ordered society that values
education. This may lead to a secondary precept that children should not be sent to war. The UK recruits 16 year olds. This may be seen as contrary to human nature. Amnes
ty, and other human rights groups, consider this a violation of the absolute principles
supported by the UNDHR and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (optional protocol from 2000)

Question 59

How would Natural Law view human rights (link to Geneva convention)?

Answer 59

Many people argue that the torture of potential terrorists can be justified if it leads to the prevention of an attack. If the motivation is pure, Natural Law might describe this as a good interior act but a bad exterior act. In fact, the existence of torture can lead to bad interior acts such as in Abu Ghraib, where soldiers delighted in the suffering of prisoners of war. Natural Law would never see torture as a good exterior act.

Question 60

How would Natural Law view the recruitment which exploited poor people in America?

Answer 60

In America, soldiers were recruited to go to Iraq from poor black neighbourhoods where
they had no other choices. The money was an efficient cause that got them to Iraq.
However, the final cause is different. What is the end or purpose of a soldier? There is a lot of disillusionment around Iraq, and many believe that the end or purpose of the war, to
establish peace and democracy, has been lost or compromised

Question 61

How would Natural Law view pacifism?

Answer 61

Christian pacifism comes from the belief that it is wrong to kill. The early church was pacifist, and in WWI many soldiers conscientiously objected on religious grounds. Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek, and many believe that killing is an evil that we should not do.

Question 62

How would Natural Law view genocide (Link to Darfur) ?

Answer 62

This primary precept is commonly used to establish secondary precepts to prevent life from being destroyed–eg, ‘Do not abort’, ‘Do not commit euthanasia’, and it may be used to support Jus in Bello (‘don’t target innocents’). However, it can also be used to require someone to act. For example, in the case of genocide, many think that the powerful nations have a duty to protect the people of Darfur from being slaughtered in large numbers.

Question 63

How would Natural Law view landmines?

Answer 63

There are many different forms of indiscriminate weapons that are still being used today. Natural Law may describe these as apparent goods– they seem to be effective, helping one side to ‘win the war’. However, they aren’t actually good because they kill innocent people.

Question 64

How would Natural Law view Hiroshima?

Answer 64

Natural Law cannot justify killing 140,000
people to end a war, even if this prevents millions from dying. However, if the intention was to destroy a military target in Hiroshima, and the civilian deaths were a by-product of this, then the doctrine of double effect comes in. The civilian deaths are proportionate, as millions of deaths are being prevented. However, many
commentators believe the intention was to kill innocent people, which would be evil.

Question 65

How would Utilitarians decide to go to war?

Answer 65

In Utilitarianism, the end justifies the means. Strictly speaking, a country wouldn’t need a just cause to go to war as long as they had the right intention - the greatest good for the greatest number. A utilitarian would not support selfish motives. However, utilitarians would be happy for the military or the President to make up a threat so long as the ensuing war made the world a better place.
Rule Utilitarians may have a different approach, arguing that a world where people go to war without a just cause would be an unstable world. Therefore the Just War Criteria, although in many cases not utilitarian, may be necessary to make the world a better place.

Question 66

How would Kantians decide to go to war?

Answer 66

Kant would not support needlessly going to war, as it would mean willing that I might be shot, which is contrary to the will. However, his theory would support declaring war in defense of others. We could happily universalise a maxim that said we should go to war to defend another country from attack - because we too would want to be defended if we were attacked. If soldiers had no vested interest in making the world a safer place, then they would be merely being used. This means we would have to look closely at the justification for going to war to see if Kant would support it.

Question 67

How would Natural Law ethicist decide to go to war?

Answer 67

One Primary Precept is that we should ‘protect and preserve the innocent’, which would justify going to war to defend others. However, Natural Law theorists would see this very much as a last resort. They would also criticise the way in which wars are fought, with a lack of respect for human beings. Another Primary Precept says that we should live in an ‘ordered society’. If an attack threatens the structure and authority of our society, this may justify our retaliation

Question 68

How could situation ethics be used to decide whether to go to war?

Answer 68

Situation Ethics demands that we do the most loving thing. This may mean going to war - Augustine said that while we may go to war, we should love our enemies (as Jesus instructed) even as we kill them. However, situation ethics would be against the use of excessive force, using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons etc.

Question 69

How would Virtue ethics decide to go to war?

Answer 69

War is not part of eudaimonia. However, it may be possible to go to war in order to achieve peace, which would be part of eudaimonia. Virtue Ethics focusses on character, and may argue that soldiers are brave and just, as they stand up for the poor and weak. However, the realities of being a soldier are that you just follow orders - not an example of wisdom, one of the cardinal virtues

Question 70

What does virtue ethics say about the training of soldiers?

Answer 70

If you behave a certain way, you develop that trait. Virtue Ethics may suggest that it is wrong to train soldiers to hate and kill, as they will continue to behave that way. An example is the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Grhaib.These soldiers were trained to hate, so is it any surprise that this is what they did?