Analysis of Just War Theory - Essay Example

two problems arise when trying to justify the use of JWT in shaping the United States and allies’ strategies in Afghanistan, where it is fighting an untraditional enemy that does not share the same kind of ethical ideals.

The first problem arises from the thought of each of the two sides in the nontraditional war as moral agents, when one has rejected the moral code the other follows. Since a moral code sets the ethical guidelines governing a community, when one party does not accept the moral code, the one that does accept the code is not obligated to follow that code. For instance, it is generally accepted that killing an animal that is known to be dangerous is ethical, insofar as doing so protects other members of the moral community from being harmed.

Similarly, if a nontraditional army does not accept these rules of conduct, like the animal, it is well within the moral right of the traditional one to ensure its enemy does not harm another member of the moral community. From this assumption that militaries are moral agents, and the fact that moral codes provide the ethical guidelines for the community, an entity that does not accept the moral code is not obligated to ethical treatment according to this code. A war is nothing more than murder of other human beings; but instead of being punishable murder, it is sanctioned by states. JTW theory proposes how one can create a more ethical war, but it does not address the issue of whether war itself is ethical.

This relatively conservative answer to whether JTW applies to a nontraditional war is supplemented by a second problem, which is tangentially addressed in “The Call to Arms”. This issue has to deal with the source of JTW moral prescriptions, and whether a nontraditional fighting force like that seen in Afghanistan to be dealt with ethical principles based on notions like “Christian love” or within the tradition of JTW began by Christian theologians of the Middle Ages.

If JTW is rooted in Christian love, then it is certainly arguable that Divine Law applies to every human community; however, not every human community or its military will support the use of Divine Law precepts in creating its military strategies and techniques for achieving victory. Targeting civilians with explosives, a common practice in the terrorist militaries the United States is currently fighting is condemnable by the standards of value in Christian ethics. Nevertheless, by whatever standard of value terrorists use to justify their actions, targeting civilians with explosives is, to them, a noble practice. This kind of direct opposition of interests, values, and moral principles makes the use of JTW theory in shaping military policy both irrational and impractical.

That is, in a community of moral agents, political and normative guidelines make it possible for punishments to be made based on violations (premeditated or not) or outright rejections of socially accepted norms. If the basic assumption of JTW theory is granted, that states and their militaries are moral agents obligated to certain moral principles, then it is illogical to say that states cannot be deprived of their most basic rights for being willing detractors by targeting civilians in wartime—a violation of international law, which applies to all militaries, traditional and nontraditional, at all times. Likewise, it is unlikely a nontraditional enemy, motivated by political beliefs different from the West’s, will ever be willing to accept these norms. Read More