Just War Ethics Theories - Essay Example

Just War Ethics Theories Just War Ethics Theories Introduction Most people across the globe view war as an unnecessaary and immoral act that leads to loss of lives and property, dispalcement and untold suffering to that it affects. Matters related to repsonse to war have caused numerous observers to conclude that the present global law era is an outmoded artifact. They specifically state that the just war tradition that acts a moral gauge for the global policies governing war requires a major modification. There are three moral theories that can be create a better understanding of the just war theory including virtue ethics, deontology and utilitarianism. This essay states that utilitarianism is the best theory that can be used to shed more light on the just war tradition in place of the usual deontological and virtue ethics perspectives. Virtue Ethics The theory of virtue ethics was proposed by Aristotle and the decision-making process in war may be based on it. Virtue ethics mainly pays attention on the character of the individual rather than the morality of the action. In this case a moral individual will base their decisions of their actions on well-established values that they have acquired over the years rather than their duty or consequences (Cafaro and Ronald, 2010). Therefore, virtue ethics states that there are no situations in which war should be considered to be right be it for reasons of duty or the big picture that is attained once the dust has settled. A culture of values is ingrained into a person’s ethical framework and guides them in their ethical decisions. According to virtue ethics, war is unjust as it is not part and parcel of eudemonia meaning that it does not promote the well-being of individuals. However, there are instances where war qualifies as eudemonia for example, where a war takes place in order to find peace. All in all, virtue ethics suggests that war is never justified. In times of war, soldiers are required to be brave and fight for the rights of the defenseless in society (Cafaro and Ronald, 2010). This goes against their code of conduct where they are require to follow the orders that are issues by their superiors. Virtue ethics has an important contribution to make with regards to the soldiers’ training process. If individuals are taught to behave in a certain way, this behavior becomes a part of them. Therefore, virtue ethics insinuates that it would be wrong to train soldiers to kill as they will act as instructed regardless of the kind of damage they cause to the victims. Virtue ethics focuses on the role that individuals play in a move to promote positive results for others (Cafaro and Ronald, 2010). The theory takes an agent-centered perspective instead of what one does. There are various examples that can be used to get a better understanding of the theory of virtue ethics in the argument against just war. For example in the case of the worst holocaust in Germany that lead to the death of nine million slaves and six million Jews. Hitler was the mastermind behind this holocaust and he was aided by academicians, scientists and architects. These individuals were not virtuous at all and the cause of war could not be justified. The soldiers that killed innocent civilians did so because they were instructed to do so. Some of the wars in the modern times are simply unjustified. This is where a country attacks another based on the claim that the have ‘weapons of mass destruction’. According to virtue ethics, this is wrong as it challenges the integrity of the leaders that authorize the war as well as that of the soldiers that take part in the war (Cafaro and Ronald, 2010). The best example is the Iraq war where President Bush deployed the US troops in the war torn nation. The US troops were involved in gross violation of human rights, the death of innocent civilians as well as the displacement of families. The second example is in the case of Libya whereby the US claimed that its intervention was in order to overthrow Muamar Gaddafi from power. It can be observed that the US only resulted to distraction of the country that they did not help in rebuilding. There are various strengths and weaknesses that are linked with the use of the theory in the argument against just war. One of the major strengths of the theory is that it places a lot of importance on the members of community and their well-being. It results to the creation of unity among the members of community living together. Most of the wars in the 20th century have been caused by disunity among two groups of people. Secondly, the theory focuses on motivations, emotions, character and disposition (Cafaro and Ronald, 2010). These traits cannot even be imparted through education explaining why soldiers kill simply because they have been instructed to do so. The first major issue related with the theory is that it cannot be applied universally (Chatterjee, 2011). Secondly, the concept of being virtuous varies across various cultures. Finally, there is the conflict setback since the theory does not make provisions for dilemmas. Deontological The deontological moral theory is equally an important theory that goes against the concept of the just war. The theory states that an action is right or wrong based on the question it goes against what is viewed as being wrong as well as maximizes the good. It is the intrinsic nature of action that establishes whether it is right or wrong (Aggestam, 2008). The theory draws a clear line between what is right and wrong and this way of thinking is adopted in decision-making. It puts up restrictions against getting the most good for the highest number of people when it affects moral standards. The theory places a considerably high value on the life of an individual and therefore it means that actions that are taken to maximize the benefits for the majority and go against the rights of the minority are plainly wrong. The deontological theory is also referred to as the duty based theory as it mainly concentrates on the actions that individuals undertake, not on the results of their actions. This means that war is wrong simply because it is the right thing to do. Secondly, acts of war wrong simply because they wrong others (Aggestam, 2008). Individuals are thereby advised to avoid doing what is wrong. This means that the masterminds of war as well as the soldiers that take part in the war are wrong. Deontologist state war can never be justified since killing, rape, poverty, displacement and other evils that are experienced in war are intrinsically wrong. According to the theory justice should be guaranteed at all times. This goes against the wars that have taken place over the years in the disguise of achieving the greatest advantage for the highest number of individuals (Das, 2011). In the past there have been political revolutions in countries that have resulted into loss of human lives and untold suffering on innocent civilians. Although such wars have been observed to have positive impacts such as finding a lasting peaceful solution or overthrowing tyrannical regimes from power, they are termed to be wrong as they resulted into the loss of lives. There is an interesting theory in the deontological theory that argues that violence or war is justified is if it against a person that has cause harm to others. Just like the conventional just war theory, the deontological theory draws a clear line between combatants and non-combatants. It further adds that it would be wrong to attack non-combatants that are viewed to be the victims of war (Aggestam, 2008). Combatants put the lives of the opponent military personnel at risk. Utilitarianism This is the final theory that can be used to argue for the situations in which war can be justified. Therefore when individuals undertake any actions they should always assess if they promote happiness for the highest number of individuals. The theory states that individuals strive to attain happiness in the long-run. The theory can be used in the context of the just war to justify the fact that the end of the acts of war justifies the means. The theory is used to justify violence and war if at all they result to increased utility for the highest number of individuals. There are some wars in the recent times that can be justified using this theory (Das, 2011). The best example is the contentious Iraq war. Apparently thousands of lives were lost during the war for the greater cause of ensuring improved safety of the US citizens as well as the fall of a dictatorial regime. It can therefore be observed that the war was justified as it focused on benefiting the highest number of individuals The Best Theory Utilitarianism is seen as the best theory that can be used to explain the situations that call for just war. It is clear that individuals and nations choose from the norms, policies and laws that optimize overall utility, in other words, those that profit the members of society. In the same way rules established by the just war theory were established throughout history as they targeted to maximize utility for the members of society (Whitman, 2007). They were put in place to control events of war, probability of war in future once peace had been attained and limit the consequences of war. There are various reasons as to why utilitarianism is viewed as the best theory when making judgements with regards to just war. First, the decisions that are made with regards to war are made under a certain level of uncertainity. As a result, litigators should adopt the basic rules that have been stated by the utilitarian concept. Evaluating the procedure of jus ad bellum and the history changes in such rules shows the nature of these regulations (Whitman, 2007). It can be observed that the procedure of just cause has changed from avenging for wrongs done using military force to defending a nation’s integrity and finally, the provision of humanitarian aid by using the military. Similar changes in the jus in bello procedures has widened the scope for ‘protected persons’ as well as combatants. The goal is constant that focuses on mitigating the consequences of war. Utilitarianism gives individuals and the government the capacity to make future plans without bearing in mind the frequent exceptions that exist with regards to sparticular rules. The best example is the defensive war in Iraq. It is clear that international law and just war theory have not been for the defensive war theory with few exceptions (Whitman, 2007). The basic rule is that a country should be fighting a progressing oppression for the use of militart force to be regarded as being moral. Nations involved in a political tussle should not underake any form of military action. The final reason that supports the utilitarian approach is the it is focussed on enforcement. This benefit is associated with the jus in bello policies. Eventually, if basic policies are internalized as components of the defining elements of what is said to be a virtuous soldier specifically in the American military, this is said to be the case (Whitman, 2007). Propotional use of force together with discrimination have been observed to be definitive of the US military actions. The consequence is an improvement in utility as the negative impacts of war are minimized. However, the effort that is required to implement such policies and punish the wrong doers is significantly reduced. Conclusion To sum up, the debate on just war will continue mainly following the modern-day wars. There are various moral perspectives that can be used to explain the just war theory including virtue ethics, deontological and utilitarinism. However, utilitarinism is the theory is the most practical for the explaining just war in the contemporary world. This is owing to the fact that countries go to war for various reasons and some of them are justifiable and practical and the other theories have failed to capture this aspect. References Aggestam, L. (2008). Introduction: ethical power Europe? International affairs, 84(1), 1-11.  Cafaro, P. & Ronald, D. S. (eds.). (2010). Virtue ethics and the environment, Dordrecht; New York: Springer. Chatterjee, D. K. (2011). Prisoners of War. Encyclopedia of Global Justice, 904-90. Crawford, N. C. (2003). Just war theory and the US counterterror war. Perspective on Politics, 1(01), 5-25. Das, R. (2011). Preventive War. In Encyclopedia of Global Justice (pp. 898-900). Springer  Netherlands. Whitman, J. P. (2007). Just war theory and the war on terrorism: A utilitarian perspective. Public Integrity, 9(1), 23-43. Read More