Is War Morally Wrong - Essay Example

Student Name Tutor Title: Is war morally wrong? Institution Date Is war morally wrong? Introduction Wars have been so far one of the most common form of organized political violence in the recent past. The World Health Organization approximated that war resulted to about 310,000 deaths in the year 2000 alone. Unfortunately civilians bear the greatest impacts as indicated by the recent statistics. In particular, the International Committee of the Red Cross indicated that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in violent conflicts ever since the World War II as at 10 to 1 (James Greif, 2011, par 7). On the same note, Roberts indicated that about 80-90 percent of wars victims are civilians (Roberts, 2010; 115). African continent seems to be worst hit where civil conflict and political stalemates continue to be prevalent, leading to political insecurity, as the case of civil wars in Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Uganda and more currently the Arab revolutions across North Africa and the Middle East. All this are just but reflection of this continent-wide political and social dissatisfaction (Cubitt, 2011; 1). A powerful conservative wisdom cleaves to that civil wars thrives fast with the end of the Cold War and that the basis of a lot of these has been tribal and religious antagonisms (Fearon and Laitin, 2003). Aligned with this background, the question one might ask is whether war is justified. People have always wrestled with the ethics of war and peace since the beginning of human history not just in western civilization but worldwide (Orend, 2006; 9). This paper will add up to the current debate about morality and war. The aim is to give answer to the question, is war always morally wrong? The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section two gives some highlights of the key concepts followed immediately by discussion on the subject forms the main body in section three. The final section four will give a conclusion mainly drawn the discussion in section three. Definition of Key concepts War and Morality War means different things to different people but all boils down to some form of violent action. Reader (2000; 169) describes war as a violent action of one state upon another for the sake of a political end. However, according to Orend, war ought to be understood as a real, deliberate, and prevalent armed conflict between political societies. In this definition, Orend argues that fisticuffs between people do not tally as war, nor does a squad battle nor does dispute on the order of the Hatfiled against the McCoys. He describes war as trend that takes place just between political societies described as those units that either are sovereigns or are determined to became sovereign so as to permit for civil wars (Orend, 2006;4). On the other hand, morality essentially relates to systems or principles used by mankind, in most cases unconsciously in their attempt to arrive at morally acceptable decisions after considering several alternative actions, or when they make moral judgments about some of the actions including those of others. According to Gert, morality is an informal public system applying to all normal individuals governing behavior that influences others and includes what are commonly known as the moral rules, ideas and virtues and has the dwindling of wickedness or destruction as objectives (Gert, 2006; 14). Morality may be thought as a product of cultural orientation. Stetsa and Carterb, (2012) in their study“ theory of the Self for the Sociology of Morality”, concluded that identity process and framing of situations as moral are significantly associated with moral action and moral emotions of guilt and shame. Having defined the above key concepts, the next section presents discussions on the subject matter, whether war is at all times morally wrong. There are majorly three schools of thoughts to this question of morality namely pacifism, just war theory and Realism. Pacifism generally holds that war is always morally wrong but tends to advocate for peaceful coexistence. Derksen gives two categories of pacifism namely separational pacifists and international pacifists. The former are generally the group of people who believe that war always wrong and hold to non-participation in the worldly state. On the other hand, the latter group, integrational pacifists, seek to reform society in a more peaceful direction and believe that war, though sometimes necessary, is inhumane and irrational and should be prevented (Derksen, 2011;161-162). Socrates are examples of separational pacifists as they totally reject war and see no moral justification for it for instance they state, we should never do injustice we should likewise never return an injustice, we should never do evil ; so we should never return evil for evil, no matter what we may have suffered (Cady, 2010; 5). The Socrates completely rejects and forms of retaliation and consequently sees no moral justification for war or violence. To them, war is all the time morally wrong. War is all the time morally wrong on the following grounds: most of the modern wars sometimes may require elimination or assassination of the blameless for instance by way of anti-moral use of modern technology like bombing. To this extent, a war as it entails killing the blameless is morally wrong. In addition, random violence in war is disordered and so in principle unjustified. Apart from this, even the discriminate violence between the soldiers themselves is usually not justified in the way required to justify wars (Reader, 2000; 179). Reader hold very strongly on what she calls the moral status of persons (MSP) in which an individual is associated with some moral status with respect to their personhood or individuality irrespective of their political association, statehood among other things and there is no way an individual’s morality matter more or less than any other person. Another line of argument with regards to the pacifists school of thought is the utilitarian view of war which may argue that an act that tends to facilitate some high level of happiness and care of people relative to the alternative choice is generally morality right however, no acts of killing other people as the care of war influence the greatest level of happiness and care consequently no acts of killing other people in any nature as the case of war is regarded as morally right. On the same vein, it can be argued that there are some things simply may not be done on individuals or persons because they are generally an end in themselves. Opposing view, that war is not always morally wrong may be attributed to the following reasons: that not all modern war involve the killing of the innocent; that war is generally associated with some kind of moral suspension and consequently is not liable to moral criticism. The other reasons may revolve around the fact that killing of the innocent may be justified or morally blameless if at all it is only a foreseen case but not done intentionally by those involved and lastly, that the restriction against killing of the innocent can but be overridden by rather a more important moral requirements for instance defense for freedom. In one way or another, these reasons are relates to the Just War theory discussed in details in the subsequent paragraphs. Michael Walzer (2004) while arguing about war stated that war is a sphere of drastic cruelty, in that fairness is at all times beneath a cloud. Still, sometimes we are right to enter the sphere. This actually relates to the Just War theory which is mainly concerned with how and why wars are fought. It involves two features. The first one is the theoretical which deals with ethically justifying war and specifies the forms which should be taken by these wars. The second aspect is the historical dimensions which relates to historical rules have applied in various wars across the ages. The famous Geneva and Hague conventions fall under this category. The major underlying issue in just war theory is a durable ethical framework for considering questions of when and how force can be employed in defense of justice and the common good. In particular, St. Thomas Aquinas precisely presents some of the conditions for a just war in his question "On War" in the Summa Theologiae. He argues that for a war to be licit it must be waged by a lawful power, for fair cause, and with a correct intent. These three principles serve as the basic foundation for the just war tradition. In addition, he uses treatises of the cardinal and theological virtues. The cardinal virtues include prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance while theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity (Robert, 2010). Just war theory, the most widely accepted theory of the morality of war contains two proportionality conditions that say a war or act in war is justified only if the damage it causes is not excessive (Hurka, 2006). None the less, Orend’s arguments for morality of war is consistent with his own core principles, notably the categorical imperative whereby it can be said that war is just if, and only if, during the long transition from the international state of nature to a cosmopolitan civil society, armed force reasonably seems required to vindicate universal principles of international justice (Orend, 1999; 352). The Just theory tends to lessen the evil nature of war. Betz argue that the most crucial way it contains the harms of war is, primary, to make differentiate between good (protection) and bad (violence) moral explanations for initiating to war, jus ad bellum. Then, the next is to differentiate well (in no way should you harass civilians, do simply balanced damage to the opponent) and bad (harass civilians, cause whichever quantity of unrestricted damage) moral explanations for strategy in war, jus in bello (Betz, 2011; 148). A remarkable characteristic of just war theory as offered by Michael Walzer is the argument that armed forces are held morally accountable for fighting justly, not for fighting simply in a just war. He writes that "by and large we don't blame a soldier, even a general, who fights for his own government" (Walzer, 2004; 39). From Michael Walzier's argument, it follows that a nation or state, has all the rights to use military force or any other means so long as it is as a response to its national defense just like an individual who is attacked has the right to even kill with respect to his or her self-defense. In relation to this Walzer has employed “the domestic analogy” to disprove the whole war position. That is, we only approve of the possible lethality of the victim or the police shooting at the attempted murderer, not the possible lethality of the attempted murderer shooting back at the police or at his designated victim. To Walzer, by analogy, he means that only the state at war that is like the victim, the defensive state, has jus ad bellum, justice in starting a war (Betz, 2011; 151). Generally, in so far as Self-defense is concerned, the normative relationship or link between the protector and the conclusion of his or her battle is very significant. Equally important is the fact that this particular end he or she is seeking is geared towards but it is also importantly grounded in the protection and this is a good enough to merit even harmful acts in its defense. Therefore war is sometimes morally right. Another opposing school of thought to pacifists who hold that war is all the time morally wrong is the realists. According to Orend, these groups of people believe that it is rather an intractable part of an anarchical world system; that it is ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national interest”. He continues to say that, once war has starts, a state must do whatsoever it can to triumph. It therefore follows that if adhering to a set of just war constraints obstructs a nation in this view; it must ignore them and hold sternly to attending to its basic interests in authority and protection (Orend, 1999; 336). This school of thought can well be illustrated by the old adage ‘all is fair in love and war expose a value position on war that goes back as far as human reflection. This is the opinion that war leads to a suspension of moral judgments; that war occurs outside moral order (Cady, 2010). In a realist’s world, war cannot be called right or wrong in any meaningful way but rather a simple fact. It is neither good not evil but fundamental state of nature in which survival itself is at stake and people do what they must do to save themselves. After war is over moral order is reestablished but war itself is not an appropriate object of moral consideration (Cady, 2010; 30). Conclusion This paper aimed at discussing the question of morality and war. From the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that, war is not always morally wrong. It can be justified on various grounds but most important is the issue of defending one’s state. However, it can also be argued to a lesser extent that war has nothing to do with morality. That war is just war as a fact therefore the question whether war is always wrong does not arise. Reference Brian Orend (2006) The Morality of War, Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press Bernard Gert (2005) Morality: Its nature and Justification, New York: Oxford university Press, Inc. Betz, Joseph (2011) "Review of "Killing in War"“, Essays in Philosophy: Vol. 12: Issue. 1, Article 10. Brian Orend (1999). Kant's Just War Theory. Journal of the History of Philosophy 37 (2) pp323-352 By James Greif (2011) Civilian Devastation during War Explored in ‘Why They Die, George Mason University, University Press, 15 Aug, 2011 Christine Cubitt (2011) Building an Illiberal Peace: Post-Conflict Reconstruction in Sierra Leone Africa peace and conflict journal volume 4 number 1 June 2011 Duane L. Cady (2010) From Warism to Pacifism: A Moral Continuum, second edition, USA: Temple University press Gorman, Ryan Robert (2010) War and the virtues: The moral basis of Thomistic just war theory, University of Dallas, 346 Pages; 3435627 Hurka, T. (2005), Proportionality in the Morality of War. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33: 34–66. James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin (2003) Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War, American Political Science Review (2003), 97: pp 75-90 Jan E. Stetsa and Michael J. Carterb (2012) A Theory of the Self for the Sociology of Morality, American Sociological Review February 2012 vol. 77 no. 1 120-140 John Derksen (2011) A Costly, but Influential Counterculture: A Review of Four Works on War-time Pacifism Journal of Mennonite Studies pp 161-170 Michael Walzer (2004) Arguing about war, New Haven and London: Yale University Press  Soran Reader (2000) Making Pacifism Plausible, Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol 17, no.2 pp 169-180 Read More

He describes war as trend that takes place just between political societies described as those units that either are sovereigns or are determined to became sovereign so as to permit for civil wars (Orend, 2006;4). On the other hand, morality essentially relates to systems or principles used by mankind, in most cases unconsciously in their attempt to arrive at morally acceptable decisions after considering several alternative actions, or when they make moral judgments about some of the actions including those of others.

According to Gert, morality is an informal public system applying to all normal individuals governing behavior that influences others and includes what are commonly known as the moral rules, ideas and virtues and has the dwindling of wickedness or destruction as objectives (Gert, 2006; 14). Morality may be thought as a product of cultural orientation. Stetsa and Carterb, (2012) in their study“ theory of the Self for the Sociology of Morality”, concluded that identity process and framing of situations as moral are significantly associated with moral action and moral emotions of guilt and shame.

Having defined the above key concepts, the next section presents discussions on the subject matter, whether war is at all times morally wrong. There are majorly three schools of thoughts to this question of morality namely pacifism, just war theory and Realism. Pacifism generally holds that war is always morally wrong but tends to advocate for peaceful coexistence. Derksen gives two categories of pacifism namely separational pacifists and international pacifists. The former are generally the group of people who believe that war always wrong and hold to non-participation in the worldly state.

On the other hand, the latter group, integrational pacifists, seek to reform society in a more peaceful direction and believe that war, though sometimes necessary, is inhumane and irrational and should be prevented (Derksen, 2011;161-162). Socrates are examples of separational pacifists as they totally reject war and see no moral justification for it for instance they state, we should never do injustice we should likewise never return an injustice, we should never do evil ; so we should never return evil for evil, no matter what we may have suffered (Cady, 2010; 5).

The Socrates completely rejects and forms of retaliation and consequently sees no moral justification for war or violence. To them, war is all the time morally wrong. War is all the time morally wrong on the following grounds: most of the modern wars sometimes may require elimination or assassination of the blameless for instance by way of anti-moral use of modern technology like bombing. To this extent, a war as it entails killing the blameless is morally wrong. In addition, random violence in war is disordered and so in principle unjustified.

Apart from this, even the discriminate violence between the soldiers themselves is usually not justified in the way required to justify wars (Reader, 2000; 179). Reader hold very strongly on what she calls the moral status of persons (MSP) in which an individual is associated with some moral status with respect to their personhood or individuality irrespective of their political association, statehood among other things and there is no way an individual’s morality matter more or less than any other person.

Another line of argument with regards to the pacifists school of thought is the utilitarian view of war which may argue that an act that tends to facilitate some high level of happiness and care of people relative to the alternative choice is generally morality right however, no acts of killing other people as the care of war influence the greatest level of happiness and care consequently no acts of killing other people in any nature as the case of war is regarded as morally right. On the same vein, it can be argued that there are some things simply may not be done on individuals or persons because they are generally an end in themselves.

Read More