1 Applied Ethics Section 6 Ethics of War

2 Is Ethics Applicable to Warfare? Some reject the applicability of ethics to wars, citing the adage ‘All’s fair in love and war.’ Possibly the argument is that war is a no-holds- barred contest, & that for that reason ethics is irrelevant.

3 Rejection of the Inapplicability of Ethics to War If ethics were inapplicable to war, there could be no debates about whether the ferocity of war should be mitigated, & to respect those who surrender by treating them as prisoners of war. There would be no point in the Geneva Conventions on the humanitarian treatment of victims of war.

4 The Justifiability of Warfare Even if it were true that war is a no-holds- barred contest, there would still be room for discussing whether it’s ever right to go to war, & whether particular circumstances make doing this justifiable.

5 Is War Ever Justified?  Pacifists hold that it is wrong to meet violence with violence, either because non-violence is always the best way to restore peace & reconciliation, or because acts of violence are wrong in themselves.

6 Jan Narveson Claims that pacifism is incoherent. Those who hold that violence is wrong have to believe that everyone has a right not to be a victim of violence, & are therefore inconsistent if they believe it is wrong to take steps to uphold this right (see note 1 [last slide, this Section]).

7 However… Pacifists need not accept such a right. And those who do affirm it need not believe that there is an obligation to take violent steps to vindicate it. So Narveson’s case for pacifism being incoherent collapses.

8 Problems for Pacifism Pacifism is held unable to cope with the principle of Negative Responsibility, by which agents are responsible for the impacts of their omissions as well as their actions.

9 Catholic Teaching & Just War Thomas Aquinas taught that warfare can be just if certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions have been supplemented by subsequent writers, including Joseph C. McKenna.

10 McKenna’s Conditions 1. Declaration of war by a legitimate authority. 2. Must have a just cause; the injury to be prevented or rectified must be real & certain. 3. Its seriousness must be proportioned to the harms generated by war. 4. Reasonable hope of success. 5. War must be entered into only as a last resort. 6. The intentions of the belligerent country must be right; for example, a war of defence must not be conducted with the aim of expansion or expropriation. 7. The measures used in war must be moral (see note 2 [last slide, this Section]).

11 A Brief Analysis of the Conditions The requirement of a declaration of war by a legitimate authority needs modification to allow for the possibility that sometimes a revolution or civil war might be justified. McKenna’s conditions could be debated, for example by asking whether they’re necessary or jointly sufficient. Most of the conditions (such as proportionality & last resort) are susceptible of a consequentialist defence, or again of a Kantian one.

12 Measures Used in War The requirement that the measures be moral ones turns out to involve these measures being proportionate to the goods to be attained or the evils the war is to avert, & discrimination being shown between combatants & non-combatants.

13 The Ethics of Conduct in War Individual military personnel can be held responsible for their actions in warfare. They are not to be exculpated by appealing to ‘superior orders’.

14 Geneva Conventions Specify kinds of conduct agreed to be unallowable in war. Form part of the law of war. Military training should ensure that ethical expectations are clarified & understood.

15 Nuclear War Any use of nuclear weapons would be disproportionate to any goods to be attained & also involve indiscriminate violence against non-combatants, & would therefore be morally wrong.

16 Deontological Argument Against Nuclear Deterrence Nuclear deterrence can be argued to be wrong on the deontological basis that it is wrong to intend to do what it is wrong to actually do (that is, use nuclear weapons).

17 Nuclear Deterrence & Consequentialism Some consequentialists hold that if such deterrence prevents war, then the readiness to use nuclear weapons that it involves is justified.

18 Nuclear Deterrence & Consequentialism Other consequentialists argue that the risks of nuclear escalation & nuclear proliferation mean that nuclear deterrence, at least on the part of the UK, is unjustified. Implications for other powers. Nuclear escalation: an arms race involving competition to outdo the weaponry of others, escalating into nuclear war. Nuclear proliferation: the holding of nuclear weapons being imitated by other states with the necessary economic, scientific & technological capacity.

19 Notes 1. Jan Narveson, ‘Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis’, Ethics, 75, 1965, Joseph C. McKenna, ‘Ethics and War: A Catholic View’, American Political Science Review, 54, 1960,