short essay 200 words

Applied Ethics

War and Terrorism

Instructor’s Supplementary Notes:

Boyle (2007); Beitz (2007); Hawk

(2007).

A. Preliminaries.

1. There are two fundamental moral questions about war:

I. Is waging war ever morally justified and if so, who ought to wage it and under what

conditions?

II. What are the moral principles, if any, that govern the conduct of those who engage

in prosecuting war?

2. Two comments about the scope of the present discussion are in order:

(i) We will only deal with the first question during the present topic, although I wish to

emphasize the importance of the second question to the conduct of war;

(ii) While admittedly we may identify several types of wars, we will restrict the scope of

the first question to what in the modern era constitute wars between sovereign countries.

3. So we may rephrase question I as follows:

I*. Under what conditions, if any, a sovereign country is morally justified to wage war

against another sovereign country?

4. We can distinguish three positions regarding question (I*):

a. Realism: According to a realist position morality does not apply to relations among

sovereign countries, including regarding the matter of waging war. International relations

Lupu 2

between countries are governed exclusively by the interests of each state. Therefore,

according to the realist position, the only relevant considerations that need to be assessed

by a state regarding waging a war against another state are whether the interests of the

state are better served by a war rather than by other means, the likelihood of victory, and

the cost of the war compared to the expected benefits.

b. Antiwar Pacifism: According to antiwar pacifists since war is inherently about killing

other human beings and since all human beings have a right to life, it follows that waging

war is immoral even in the case of self-defense. Moreover, antiwar pacifists point out that

since it is rarely possible to anticipate and fully control all the unintended consequences

of war, the adverse consequences of war more often than not outweigh the real benefits.

c. Just War Theory: Just war theory is the most accepted middle ground between the

previous two extreme positions. Hence, it maintains that some wars are morally justified,

while others are not. Naturally, such a position is required to specify clear conditions to

distinguish morally justified wars from those which are not morally justified. The

following is a list of conditions each of which is necessary in order for a war to be

morally justified. It is not clear whether according to just war theory the conjunction of

these conditions is also sufficient.

5. Conditions of Just War Theory. Each of the conditions listed below should be read as follows:

X is a morally justified war only if _______; where in the blank you enter the condition

specified:

i. War is declared by a legitimate authority: A war is justified only if it is declared and

waged by legitimate government authority of a sovereign nation or nations.

Note: One of the most difficult issues which the above criterion raises is this: What constitutes a

legitimate authority and who decides this question? For instance, are we to count unelected

governments or governments elected through fraudulent elections or autocracies as legitimate?

And who decides these questions? It is therefore important to distinguish between governments

that are legitimate only insofar as they de-facto hold the reins of power vs. governments that are

legitimate because the international community views them as representing the will of their

Lupu 3

people. In reality, the international community often must deal with de-facto government even if

these governments did not obtain power by means recognized as legitimate.

ii. The Cause of War is Just: One clear example of a just reason for a war is self-defense.

While there are clear cases of self-defense, many other cases are less clear. For instance,

does going to war in order to defend a weaker ally against aggression constitute self-

defense? Or is preemptive war in some cases justified because it is motivated by self-

defense? What about preventive war; i.e., a case where one nation goes to war against

another merely because it is afraid its rival intends to attack it? Is there a difference

between preemptive-war and the doctrine of preventive-war? Many just war theorists

consider humanitarian intervention as a case of a just cause (see Beitz for such an

argument).

iii. The War is Declared and Waged with Rightful Intentions: i.e., the motive for

declaring and waging a war must be just. Once again there is a serious problem about

distinguishing between intentions that are rightful versus wrongful intentions. History is

replete with wars in which both sides claimed the moral high ground because they

professed just intentions.

iv. The War is a Last Resort: Peaceful alternatives to war, primarily negotiations and

other non-violent pressures, must be first exercised before a war is waged. However,

what actions are peaceful? For instance, are economic sanctions by the international

community peaceful? What about an economic blockade?

v. Proportionality: The cost and benefits must be assessed with respect to the potential

harm versus the good that is obtained by waging war.

vi. Reasonable Possibility of Success: Wars always have a cost in human life and

material. Therefore, a war should be waged only if there is a reasonable possibility of

success so that the expected benefits are likely to materialize, given the enormous cost of

war.

6. Each of the above conditions raises numerous questions. It is up to you to evaluate whether

you think that despite the ambiguities and the many questions each condition raises, the just war

Lupu 4

theory is still a morally valuable theory to guide relations among countries with respect to

potential conflicts.

7. The above should give you enough material to discern the positions and arguments of the three

authors assigned for this final week. I should perhaps explain why in the last couple of weeks I

have purposefully refrained from outlining the authors on our reading list. My purpose is to force

you to use my Preliminary Notes as a guide to discern on your own the positions and arguments.

I think that at this stage of the term you should have acquired the tools to do so. I hope I am

right. Good Luck!