War - Recap Utilitarianism Kant Virtue Ethics

What arguments have the different approaches given concerning how we should act after war? Why might their views conflict here? Is there any ethical argument for pacifism (never engaging in fighting)? If so, are there any problems with this argument?

All – Justice After War We can apply similar arguments to the end of war as well: Given that one criteria often used for a just war is to fight to defend people’s rights against violent aggression, at the end of the war, those rights should be secured. However, the initial utilitarian consideration may conflict with a Kantian one, that aggressors should be punished (as this is the reasonable thing to do). Given that resorting to war and the use of force during war should both be proportional to the end, we can also apply proportionality to any peace settlement. The settlement should not be a form of revenge, which will likely fuel resentment and further aggression, but involve reasonable terms and contribute to peace and happiness in the long term.

Overall – Is war ever truly justified? Pacifism argues that war is always unjust. There are both utilitarian and deontological arguments for pacifism: On utilitarian grounds, we may argue that aggression by a state does not need to be resisted by war, as there are other means, less destructive but just as effective, such as a very widespread campaign of civil disobedience and international sanctions. However do these responses always work? What if an aggressor responds to such campaigns with force? War may be the only means to resist, and can therefore be justified.

Overall – Is war ever truly justified? A deontological argument for pacifism argues that war always involves violating our duties. But is this right? Kant didn’t think so, and many deontologists argue that there is no duty not to kill another human being who is threatening one’s life. The maxim would be along the lines of “Kill someone who is threatening your life if there is no other option available”. However, Kant would say the force we may use should still be proportionate to the situation. If Adam is threatening Barry’s life, Barry may kill Adam if no other option is available.

Overall – Is war ever truly justified? A third argument for pacifism is that while it is theoretically possible for a war to be just, if it meets the conditions we described last lesson, no actual war has or, given human nature, can meet the conditions for being just. Why?

Applied Ethics Summary Use the information we’ve covered over the last few lessons to fill out the table. You should know the theories well enough by now that you don’t need to explain the basics (i.e. what the Hedonic Calculus or the CI is) – but you will need to point out why those basics apply in each case. Make sure you include any key points of contention within the theories themselves (i.e. between act and rule UT or between Aristotle and modern VE). If you run out of space in any of the boxes, go on to the back.

Applied Ethics Questions Previous Questions: 2017 – Explain Kant’s view on the telling of lies, using his first and second formulations of the categorical imperative (12 marks). 2016 – How might a utilitarian attempt to justify preventative imprisonment (imprisoning someone to prevent them from committing a crime, rather than because they have committed a crime)? (12 marks)