The Ethical Justification of War - Case Study Example

Military Ethics: Just War By Military Ethics: Just War In military Ethics, just war refers to the theory that deals with the justification of war. The just war theory gives the criteria for justifying the war; the criteria for the justification of war can be either ethical or historical. The historical justification of war refers to the use of the conventional historical methods in justifying wars, the conventional historical methods of justifying war include the use of laid down rules and agreements on war justification. The ethical justification of war, on other hand, refers to the application of ethical theories in justifying war. This paper deals with the ethical justification of war. The main question in ethical justification of war is, is war ethically justifiable? This paper seeks to answer this questions by applying three main theories of ethics to the phenomenon of war; the three theories of ethics are the utilitarian theory of Ethics (Consequentialism,), the Kantian Deontology, and the Aristotelian Virtue Ethics. A critical look at the application of the three theories of ethics to the phenomenon of war shows that the Aristotelian Virtue Ethics is the ethical theory that provides the most satisfactory moral answer to the ethical question that this paper seeks to answer. An application of the three theories of ethics to the phenomenon of war will yield different answers to the ethical question that we seek to answer in this paper. Let us begin by looking at the application of the utilitarian theory of Ethics to the ethical question formulated in this paper. Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism Bentham and John Stuart Mill are credited as the founders of the utilitarian theory of Ethics. According to this theory, the morality of an action is determined by the end results of an action. According to this theory, an act is considered morally right if, it maximizes happiness for the majority number of people. This in essence means that even if the particular action causes pain and suffering to one person, or a few people, but brings about happiness to the majority of people, the action will be regarded as a morally right action. According to this moral theory, therefore, as long as the end of an action brings greater good, the action will be regarded as being morally right even if the means used to accomplish the action is bad: the end justifies the mean of an action in utilitarianism (Mill, n.d). In making moral decisions, therefore, in a moral dilemma, we should always choose actions which will result in the greater good to the majority. When applied to the phenomenon of war, the utilitarian theory of ethics would state that, war is morally justifiable if it results in the happiness of the majority. What this means is that if war leads to the greater happiness of the majority of people, irrespective of the cause of the war or the motive that led to the war, the action is morally justifiable. As we stated in the analysis of the main tenets of the utilitarian theory of ethics, the main determinant of the morality of an action is the end result of an action. In the case of war therefore, if the end result of war will make the majority of people happy, the action will be regarded morally right even if the action will lead to the victimization and the exploitation of the minority of people. When applied to the question of whether or not war is morally justifiable, a utilitarian would contend that, war is morally justifiable if it aims at, and if it leads to the happiness of the majority; on the contrary, war is morally unjustifiable if it does not lead to the happiness of the majority. A critical look at the utilitarian view of morality shows that the view is flawed for it doesn’t take into consideration the causes of war. Also, the utilitarian view of war doesn’t take into consideration the conduct of the soldiers in war. These facts therefore show that the utilitarian view of war is flawed. Having looked at the application of the utilitarian theory of ethics in answering the ethical question that we have formulated in this paper, let us now look at the application of the Kantian theory of ethics in answering the question of whether or not war can be morally justified. The main tenet of the Kantian Deontological theory of ethics is that, the morality of an action is determined by the act itself, and not by the motive or the end result of the action. According to Emmanuel Kant, when in moral Dilemma, we should choose action that we would wish to be made a universal law, for anybody who would find himself/herself in the same moral predicament (Rickaby, n.d). The Deontological theory of Ethics also holds that we have a duty to act in a manner consistent with the laws of our nation or the society where we live. Unlike the utilitarian theory of ethics, the deontological theory of ethics doesn’t take the end result of an action into consideration in determining the morality of an action. The deontological theory of ethics hold that an action that is consistent with the laws that govern us are morally right, while the actions that are against the law are morally wrong. In judging whether or not war can be morally justified, the deontological theory of ethics would hold that war is justifiable if it is consistent with the laws of the nation/country. What this means in essence is that if war is allowed by the laws of a country, then the country has an obligation to participate in war, in line with the laws of the country. This kind of war according to the deontological theory of ethics is morally right. On the other hand, if war is not in line with the laws of a country, the war then is deemed morally wrong. One obvious flaw of the deontologist view of the morality of war is that, the deontological theory of ethics doesn’t take into account the end result of war in determining the morality of war. Obviously this view is flawed because the end result of war is important in determining the morality of an action; this is because it is unreasonable and useless to engage in a war without a particular goal or aim, it doesn’t make much sense to engage in war, solely, as an obligation or duty. Also, the deontological theory of ethics doesn’t take into consideration the motive of war. These facts therefore show that the deontological view of war doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer to the question of whether or not war can be morally justified. Having looked at the application of the utilitarian and the deontological theories of ethics to the question of whether or not war can be morally justified, let us now look at the application of the Aristotelian Virtue ethics in answering the moral question that we have formulated in this paper. According to the Virtue Ethics, the determinant of the morality of an action is the doer of the action. This theory holds that the character formation of the doer of the action is the determinant of the morality of an action (Nicomachean Ethics, book 11). According to this theory, when people act, their actions flow spontaneously from their character. For this reason, the actions performed by virtuous people are virtuous/morally right actions, while the actions performed by vicious people are vicious/moral wrong action. The Virtue Ethics theory of ethics hold that people develop their character through habituation; habituation to good actions lead to good character formation, while habituation to bad actions lead to bad character formation. When faced with moral quandary, Virtue Ethics theory hold that, a person with good character will spontaneously choose morally right actions, while a person with bad character will spontaneously choose morally wrong action. When applied to the moral question that we seek to answer in this paper, the justification of war would depend on the character formation of the people who launch or engage in the war. If the war is launched by people with virtuous character, then the war would be morally right. On the other hand, if the war is launched by people with vicious character, then the war is morally wrong. According to the Virtue ethics theory of ethics, therefore, the people who launch war are the determinant of whether or not the war is morally upright. A comparison of the three ethical approaches to the concept of just war shows that the virtue ethics view of the concept of just war offers the most satisfactory answer to the ethical question that we have formulated in this paper. This is because the virtue ethics theory offers holistic criteria of determining the morality of war, while the deontological and the utilitarian theories of ethics offers only partial criteria of determining the morality of war. By focusing on the doer of the action as the determinant of the morality of an action, the virtue theory takes into consideration the motive of the action, the law or the duty, and the end result of the action. This is because for a person to have a virtuous character, the person must have the right motives, the person also must have respect for law/rules, and the person must be aiming at the right end. This therefore means that in launching or participating in war, a person with virtuous character must take into consideration these three determinants of the morality of an action. The virtue ethics theory therefore offers the most satisfactory answer to the moral question that this paper seeks to answer. References Aristotle. (n.d). Nicomachean Ethics; Aristole; Ethics. ( Robert Crisp, trans). Google books. Retrieved On, 14/04/2014. From. http://www.archive.org/details/TheNicomacheanEthics Mill, J.S. ( n.d). Utilitarianism.Google Books.Retrieved on, 14/04/2014. From. http://archive.org /stream/utilitarianism01mill/utilitarianism01mill_djvu.txt Rickaby, J. ( n.d). Moral Philosophy. Project Gutenberg books. Retrieved on, 14/04/2014. From. http ://archive.org/stream/moralphilosophy08103gut/7mrph10.txt Read More