Violence Terrorism and War Just War Theory Morality

Violence, Terrorism and War Just War Theory

Morality & War The Four Central Questions about Morality & War 1. Is war subject to moral evaluation? (Nihilism vs. Moralism) 2. Is going to war always morally wrong? (Pacifism vs. Just-War Theory) 3. Under what conditions is going to war justified? (Jus ad bellum vs. Raison d’état) 4. Is it permissible to kill non-combatants in war? (Jus in bello vs. Raison de guerre)

Alternative answers to the question of the morality of war Pacifism Realism ◦ In the real world, violence is a tool ◦ Consequentialism ◦ Connected to militarism: celebrating military power ◦ Moral ideas to not apply to warfare

Alternative answers to the question of the morality of war Four kinds of pacifism 1. Universal Pacifism All killing is wrong 2. Anti-Violence Pacifism All violence is wrong 3. Personal Pacifism Personal violence is always wrong, but political violence is sometimes morally right. 4. Anti-War Pacifism Personal violence is sometimes morally permissible, but war is always morally wrong.

Alternative answers to the question of the morality of war Staatsraison (raison d’état) = Reasons of state (the national interest) are sufficient to justify war. Kriegsraison (raison de guerre) = Reasons of war (military necessity) are sufficient to justify any action within a war.

Violence, Terrorism and War Violence: Background and Statistics ◦ Defining violence ◦ Violence in the movies and media Terrorism: Background and Statistics ◦ Defining terrorism - What are the motivating factors behind terrorism? ◦ Ethical issues in facing and dealing with terrorism

Current Issues Terrorism ◦ Violent act causing widespread terror ◦ Suicide attacks ◦ Often grounded in realism ◦ Considered a war crime Targeted killing and drones ◦ Targeted killing as a legitimate method of warfare? ◦ Essential response to terrorism?

Current Issues (cont. ) Weapons of Mass Destruction ◦ Biological, chemical and nuclear weapons ◦ Different order of magnitude than typical weapons War crimes and universal human rights ◦ Victor’s justice ◦ International protocols ◦ Crimes against humanity

Current Issues (cont. ) Torture ◦ Water-boarding ◦ Enhanced interrogation methods ◦ Pacifism vs. realism ◦ From a utilitarian point of view, torture can be justified, because it serves to prevent terrorism. Realists can argue that the best way to prevent cruelty is to use cruelty in return.

Current Issues (cont. ) War Crimes and Universal Human Rights ◦ A war crime is usually defined in terms of whether it violated some commonly accepted rule of war such as those from the Hague and Geneva conventions. ◦ A crime against humanity has been treated similarly except that most often the scale of the offense has also mattered. ◦

Just War Theory Why focus on Just-War Theory It is a well-established part of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition – but that is a theological argument 2. The criteria are exactly those to which appeal is made by both sides in policy debates. 1. Examples: Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, the reprisal against Libya for the La. Belle discotheque bombing (of 1986) ◦ Exceptions 3. Pacifists Realists This might be a sign that theory is true, but better would be an argument—on the basis of a general moral theory (e. g. , utilitarianism, presumptivism or absolutism).

Just War Theory Jus ad Bellum ("Justice to go to War“) Legitimate conditions for going to war Jus in Bello ("Justice in War“) Legitimate conduct during war

Just War Theory Jus ad Bellum (Right to War) 1. can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. 2. ◦ waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. https: //www. mtholyoke. edu/acad/intrel/p ol 116/justwar. htm

Just War Theory 3. ◦ ◦ 4. ◦ “Right" Intentions can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered i. e. , self-defense against an armed attack Must be fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. https: //www. mtholyoke. edu/acad/intrel/p ol 116/justwar. htm

Just War Theory 5. ◦ The ultimate goal is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. https: //www. mtholyoke. edu/acad/intrel/p ol 116/justwar. htm

Just War Theory 6. The violence used must be proportional to the injury suffered. ◦ States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. https: //www. mtholyoke. edu/acad/intrel/p ol 116/justwar. htm

Just War Theory 7. ◦ ◦ The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. https: //www. mtholyoke. edu/acad/intrel/p ol 116/justwar. htm

Just War Theory Jus in Bello (Conduct in War) 1. Proportionality ◦ 2. ◦ ◦ Violence in a conflict should be focused on limited objectives Discrimination warriors should not intentionally attack noncombatants and nonmilitary targets the prohibition against means that are intrinsically evil, such as rape.

Just War Theory Jus in Bello (Conduct in War) 3. Intrinsically Evil Means 3. is a strictly deontological prohibition on the use of means that are viewed as being evil in themselves 3. Ex. Rape, slavery, poison, torture 4. just warriors may not use such weapons even if they might work to produce good outcomes.

Specifying Just Cause What would constitute Just Cause? The classical answer is that any of the following constitute just cause: • Repelling attack • Recapturing things taken • Punishment In sum: To be justified, war must be a response to a precedent injustice committed by the enemy.

Some Questions about Just Cause Could a pre-emptive attack (striking first when one is about to be attacked) ever be justified? • Could a preventive war (starting a war now to avoid having to fight one later) ever be justified? • Does the UN Charter constitute an agreement not to wage war except to repel attack?

Principle of Double Effect relation to noncombatants ◦ Noncombatant harms can be permitted if they are the foreseen but unintended and accidental result of a legitimate war aim. ◦ Not only must the noncombatants not be directly targeted but also the number of them likely to be injured when a target is attacked must not be disproportionately great compared to the significance of the target.

King: Pilgrimage to Nonviolence Connection between racial and economic injustice Basis in Christianity Gandhi Nonviolent resistance to evil Ethic of love vs. chain of hate Agape The universe is on the side of justice