Introduction
War is an intentional armed conflict which occurs only between political communities. The essence of war is about governance and who gets power and resources, thus who has the final say to what goes on in a given territory. As Carl Clausewitz’s puts it war is “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will”. It is about governance itself.
At the turn of the twenty first century the War on Terror proclaimed by President Bush has produced a series of moral debates in the Western world. The War on Terror raised the following fundamental questions: Can there ever be a just war? Is it permissible to cause harm and death on the ground that it is the side effect of bringing about the best result? Do humanitarian interventions help the people in need? What intentions can there be behind a war?
Political leaders justify wars by appealing to moral frameworks, of which the most influential ones are the “just war” theory and utilitarianism. Michael Walzer’s masterwork Just and Unjust Wars offers some plausible answers to these questions. The “just war” tradition – a set of mutually agreed rules of combat – evolves common values shared between two enemies. Though, in the case where enemies differ greatly in moral beliefs, war conventions are rarely applied. The motivation for two parts to agree to certain conventions can be often mutually benefiting. Historically, “just war” theorists agree that rules of war should be applied to all equally. The aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the USA on 9/11 has brought great attention to the “just war” debate. Despite the international war conventions in place, war crimes continue regardless of the righteousness of the cause.
The utilitarian framework claims that to go to war is acceptable, if and only if, it will lead to an overall improvement in the current state of affairs. For utilitarians the right action is the one that produces more good than any available alternatives, though if more good will be gained from breaking the rules than will be lost, then the utilitarians will support the necessity of a military conflict. Finally, the Doctrine of Double Effect seems a convenient tool for both war supporters and pacifists in their argument for and against war, as the doctrine is used to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm.
War is an intentional armed conflict which occurs only between political communities. The essence of war is about governance and who gets power and resources, thus who has the final say to what goes on in a given territory. As Carl Clausewitz’s puts it war is “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will”. It is about governance itself.
At the turn of the twenty first century the War on Terror proclaimed by President Bush has produced a series of moral debates in the Western world. The War on Terror raised the following fundamental questions: Can there ever be a just war? Is it permissible to cause harm and death on the ground that it is the side effect of bringing about the best result? Do humanitarian interventions help the people in need? What intentions can there be behind a war?
Political leaders justify wars by appealing to moral frameworks, of which the most influential ones are the “just war” theory and utilitarianism. Michael Walzer’s masterwork Just and Unjust Wars offers some plausible answers to these questions. The “just war” tradition – a set of mutually agreed rules of combat – evolves common values shared between two enemies. Though, in the case where enemies differ greatly in moral beliefs, war conventions are rarely applied. The motivation for two parts to agree to certain conventions can be often mutually benefiting. Historically, “just war” theorists agree that rules of war should be applied to all equally. The aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the USA on 9/11 has brought great attention to the “just war” debate. Despite the international war conventions in place, war crimes continue regardless of the righteousness of the cause.
The utilitarian framework claims that to go to war is acceptable, if and only if, it will lead to an overall improvement in the current state of affairs. For utilitarians the right action is the one that produces more good than any available alternatives, though if more good will be gained from breaking the rules than will be lost, then the utilitarians will support the necessity of a military conflict. Finally, the Doctrine of Double Effect seems a convenient tool for both war supporters and pacifists in their argument for and against war, as the doctrine is used to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm.
Contents:
Introduction
1. Just War Theory
1.1 The Right of Self-Defence and the Permissibility to Kill
1.2 Iraq War
2. Utilitarianism
3. The Intervention Dilemma: Rwanda and Kosovo
4. War and the Doctrine of Double Effect
4.1 Double Effect and Truman’s Decision to Bomb Japan
4.2 The Wrongness of Killing and Double Effect
5. War Advocates and Pacifists
Conclusion
Bibliography
Do you want to read the whole article? Make a request.
Want to use material from this website? Ask for permission.
Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is strictly prohibited even if correctly cited.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Use a nickname for your comments.