War, Terrorism, & Torture Flashcards
The questions of war and terrorism and torture
Is war ever morally justified? Is terrorism? Can torture ever be the right way?
War Realism
moral nihilism
-morality does not apply to warfare
-only concerns in war are the aims and interests of the state
Antiwar Pacifism
war is never morally justified (even in self-defense)
Pacifism
all violence is unacceptable
Just War Theory by Thomas Aquinas
When political entities can declare war
6 reasons in Just Ad Bellum
Includes two rules of Jus In Bello
Jus Ad Bellum
(justice of war) -doctrine about what actions may justify war
- the conflict is endorsed by legitimate or competent authority
- the cause is just (can include humanitarian intervention, and preemptive war, but may not include preventative war)
- The war is waged with rightful intentions, like self-defense
- The war is a last resort
- The good accomplished by going to war is proportional to the evil that the conflict causes
- There is a reasonable possibility of success
Preemptive War
a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war shortly before that attack materializes
Preventative War
aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power by strategically attacking before the balance of power has had a chance to shift in the favor of the targeted party
Jus In Bello
“Rules of just war”
- Discrimination between warriors and innocents
- the proportional use of force
Terrorism
the deliberarte use or threat of physical violence against noncombatants to aadvance political, religious, or ideological aims
-from the French Revoluts Reign of Terror
-has been around for two millennia
Secular Terrorism
a terror crime that is definitely related to religious or religious factors
State-sponsored Terrorism
terrorist violence carried out with the active support of national governments provided to violent non-state actors.
State-run terrorism
terrorist violence carried out with the active support of national governments provided to violent state actors.
Ideological/Ethnic Terrorism
terrorism to create a climate of fear among a rival group’s population (terrorism for reason of differing ideologies and/or ethnicity)
Torture
an act of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person for purposes of coercion, punishment, intimidation, or extraction of information
Questions raised about torture
in any particular instance, could it be morally permissible to torture a person?
and, should state-administered torture be legalized or institutionalized?
The Pacifism Argument Against War
wars are always wrong because the violate a fundamental right to life
Douglas P. Lackey (Anti-War Pacifism)
-the killing of soldiers is not to be taken for granted
-it is not permissible to kill others in war, even to defend against deadly, unprovoked attacks
-“Thou shalt not kill” says the Bible
-life is sacred
-people have an inherent right to life
-if we say it is self-defense, what about draftees?
-soldiers do not often die in “kill or be killed” situations
-the killing of noncombatants is constant in war
-good and evil in war are unable to be balanced, even WWII did not “save” the Jews
Jan Narveson (Against Pacifism)
pacifism has no solid foundation
-to argue pacifism as a moral principle is arguing with many difficulties
-it is better if pacifism is a personal choice, but if everyone has to be a pacifist, there would be many problems
-we have a right to use force to prevent the deprivation of the thing to which we are said to have a right
-to say violence is wrong also says that people have a right to its prevention
Jan Narvesons problems with Pacifism
- the principle of pacifism: the principle that all and only pacifists have a duty to not oppose violence with violence, then there become questions: Who are pacifists?
- It becomes a circular argument
For example:
If only x-ists have the duties of x-ism, then it is believing that one cannot be an x-ist (those that believe have the obligation, but like, no duh) - if everyone had to be a pacifist, there could be no good reason in instances to meet violence with force
- if it is individual obligation, then it is not a moral principle
- we could not defend the defenseless
To claim that violence is morally wrong is to claim
-a person has no right to indulge in it
- those who have violence done onto them have a right not to
-then we have no right to defend ourselves or others
Michael Walzer: The Legalist Paradigm
a Self-defense argument for war
-we all have a right to self-defense, a right to defend ourselves and possibly others from aggressors
-if we have such a right, we may be justified in taking life to exercise it, both in personal-self defense and in a war of self-defense
-the right of self-defense in way is based on an analogy with personal self-defense
-if killing in personal defense or defense of others, then it follows that war can be justified in a country’s act of self-defense
The domestic analogy for the theory of aggression (Waltzer)
- There exists an international society of independent states
- this intentional society has a law that establishes the rights of its members: the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty
- any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act
- aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a way of law enforcement
- Nothing but aggression can justify war
- Once the aggressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished
John Howard Yodder: When War is Unjust
Just War Theory is good in theory but has never been upheld
-specifically in the principles of last resort, proper authority, proportion of good and evil caused, and proper moral leverage of participation
-no one who has waged war has properly done so in accordance with just war theory
-states must be willing to admit there are times when war is unjust, yet they are not
The ticking time bomb argument for torture
to find the ticking time bomb, you must torture the information out of someone
Anarchist
Someone who does not believe in governmental rule
John Howard Yodder
A religious philosopher under the Mennonites
Andrew Valls on Terrorism
Some terrorism is morally right, because of jus ad bellum and jus in bello principles
A moral question about war and terrorism
Would you have a moral right to attack someone who is threatening, but has not actually attacked you?
A story of self-defense (Brianna Dennison and Amanda Collins)
Dennison was brutally raped and killed by James Biella
Collins had been raped in a parking garage at UNR and stated that “if (she) had a weapon, it may not have happened”
Justified/Justifiable War
Is it a last resort?
October 7th 2023
The anniversary of Hamas bombing Israel at a festival, killing, raping, and capturing non-combatants
Michael Waltzer: Terrorism; a Critique of Excuses
Terrorism is morally wrong because of its consistent evils
- the killing of innocents
- the intrusion of fear into everyday life
- the violation of private purposes
- the insecurity of public spaces
- the endless coerciveness of precaution
-all excuses for terrorism are invalid one way or another and therefore it is morally unjustifiable
-terrorism doesn’t work
-however, a state should recognize and listen to the harm done that causes terrorism, like oppression
Alan M. Dershowitz: The Case for Torturing the Ticking Bomb Terrorist
-the benefits of torture the costs
-using torture as a last resort to prevent a ticking bomb from exploding and killing many people
-if torture were to be legitimated, even for limited use, it could set a limited precedent for use
-nonlethal pain is temporary
-we would use torture regardless, might as well regulate it
-if torture could be carried out only with a granted warrant by a specific board of justices, we’d be able to regulate its use by law enforcement
Andrew Valls: Can Terrorism be Justified?
under the tradition of just war theory, it follows that states have the right to commit violence for certain reasons, if this is so, what about non-state actors?
-a right to self-determination
-if we can consider states as authorities, we should consider non-states as authorities as well because they have self-determination
-under this consideration, if we hold terrorism to just war standards, there may be times when terrorism is justified
Haig Khatchadourian: The Morality of Terrorism
An improvement on Wilkins’ article
-Terrorism violates the principles of justification, proportionality, and discrimination
-Terrorism can be categorized as predatory, retaliatory, non-moralistic, and religious
-There are three basic principles to take into account when it comes to war, and none of the terrorism types meets the levels to be morally justified
Positive rights
things the government ought to give you
Negative rights
personal rights you enact yourself (the government does not owe you)
a justification question (terrorism)
if you were attacked using terrorism, would you be justified in returning with terrorist attacks?
Alan M. Dershowitz
A Jewish harvard law professor who got famous in the 90’s because he represented two boys in a criminal case. He’s very involved in the Jewish Anti-Discrimination League
The case of Klaus Von Bello
In Newport, Klaus married a wealthy woman who was a hypochondriac, so he was the one who worked. One day, she dies and her children charge Klaus with murder by messing with her drugs. Klaus go to Dershowitz who charged him $2k an hour to support the two kids he was representing in Boston. Dershowitz got both the kids and Von Bello off
Lackey’s basis for pacifism
Christian/Godly values
“Thou shalt not kill”
