Ethics Of War

War is an extremely controversial topic, especially amongst philosophers. It raises many ethical and political questions, the most important, perhaps, being the circumstances under which going to war are justifiable. Views on the law of war vary greatly. Some believe non-violence is the only acceptable approach, while others believe preventive war is justified. In this paper, we will examine and discuss several philosophers and their ideologies pertaining to war. We will begin with St. Thomas Aquinas. According to St.Thomas Aquinas, three conditions must be fulfilled in order to wage war. The first condition states “the party waging war must be a legitimate government.” (Bonevac p.427) Aquinas believes only the supreme authority should
have the power to declare war, and it is unacceptable for an individual to declare war because it goes against the natural order of things. The second condition states that there must be just cause, which can be described as avenging wrongs in order to restore what has been unjustly seized. The third and final condition states “that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.” (Bonevac p.427) Aquinas also discusses whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense, and he holds that it is because “it is lawful to repel force by force.” (Bonevac p.428) However, this only applies when killing a man in self-defense is not intended. The only case, in which intending to kill a man in self-defense would be acceptable, is in serving the common good. Even then it must be on behalf of the public authority. As for killing someone by chance, Aquinas believes if a “person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose” (Bonevac p.428), the person is not guilty. However, if a man caused another’s death while partaking in unlawful activities or failing to take sufficient care, although his actions were not intended or voluntary, he will be found guilty of murder.
The next philosopher we will discuss is Francisco De Vitoria, who expanded on the conditions Aquinas deemed to be necessary in order to wage war. These additional conditions are “that war be a last resort; that war have a reasonable likelihood of success; and that the goods to be gained outweigh the evils of warfare.” (Bonevac p.425) Vitoria believed that anyone, even an individual, is entitled to accept and wage a defensive war without the approval of others. This holds for the defense of himself as well as the defense of his belongings. However, individuals are not entitled to declare war to avenge wrongs, as are states. States have the right to declare and make war not only in the defensive sense, but also to redress wrongs. Still, whether it be an individual or a state, there must be just cause for commencing war, and according to Vitoria, only one reason exists. This reason is a wrong received. Without a preceding fault, there can be no vengeance and therefore an offensive war cannot be justified. However, not all wrongs can be measured equally and so proportional force comes into play. This means that the degree of punishment should correspond to the measure of the offense. Hence, slight wrongs should not be countered with war.
In discussing the law of war, Vitoria states “everything is lawful which the defense of the common weal requires.” Preservation is the end aim of war, and therefore whatever measures must be taken to ensure this, are lawful. War should, however be a last resort. Vitoria believes careful consideration, by those who do not hold prejudices, of the reasons for resorting to force must be taken in order to avoid unjust decisions due to biased opinions. Also lawful in war, is the killing of the innocent. Deliberately taking the life of an innocent person, however, is never lawful because an innocent person has not committed a crime. Nevertheless, sometimes it is not only right, but necessary based on the circumstances. Finally, Vitoria speaks of the condition of proportionality, which is “the obligation to see that greater evils do not arise out of the war than the war would avert.” Our third philosopher, Hugo Grotius has been called the father of international law.
His beliefs were chiefly based on natural law. He believed anything repugnant to natural law, or the nature of a social being, to be considered an act of injustice. There are two inquiries into the lawfulness of war. The first inquiry says that the preservation of our lives and possession or acquirement of things necessary to sustain it, agrees with natural law. The second inquiry states that not all force is prohibited, unless it deprives another of his rights. Grotius also holds that it is a right provided by nature, to repel force by force and the instinct to defend ourselves is innate. Therefore, whatever actions one takes to defend himself, he is justified in doing
so. The only justifiable cause of war, according to Grotius, is injury or the prevention of injury. Therefore, even injuries that have not actually been committed, but threaten our person or property, provide just cause for war. It is also lawful to kill the aggressor if we are presented with immediate danger that cannot be avoided. However the danger must be immediate. Not all degrees of fear are justification for killing another in order to stop their presumed intentions. Even substantial knowledge of their ill intent does not permit you to kill them, because your knowledge of the situation could change the outcome. In addition, the law of charity states it is unlawful to harm anyone who unintentionally obstructs our defense or escape. However, it is lawful to defend ourselves against allies of our enemies. Grotius also discusses what is lawful in war, the circumstances it may be undertaken and the extent and manner to which it maybe be carried out and enforced. Grotius states that anyone has the right to seize something that belongs to another if he has unquestionable reason to believe he is in danger because of it. However, he can only detain it until he is no longer insecure. Likewise, nature grants everyone the right to recover a debt and take what is rightfully his. In doing so, Grotius believes one may do many things, which otherwise would be considered unlawful. Carl Von Clausewitz defines war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” He believes there are three reciprocal actions all of which lead to an extreme. The first reciprocal action and extreme is the utmost use of force. This occurs as violence is pushed to its utmost bounds while one side dictates the law to the other. The second reciprocal action is the disarming or overthrow of the enemy, which must always be the aim of war. The third reciprocal action is the utmost exertion of powers, which is a mutual enhancement to increase means as far as possible in order to proportion efforts to powers of resistance. Von Clausewitz believes that war is a serious means for a serious object that always arises from a political condition. The political object, or original motive, determines the aim of the military force as well as the effort to be made. Therefore, war is a political act. In addition, it is a continuation of policy by other means.
The one philosopher with a much different opinion than the others is Mahatma Gandhi, who believes non-violence is superior to physical force in every way. According to Gandhi, non-violence is the greatest force available to mankind. He believes that non-violence requires much more courage, both mental and physical, than violence. Some may mistake this for weakness, but Gandhi holds that it is quite the opposite. Non-violence is a potent force that begins with the mind. Even under extreme circumstances, such as one’s independence, Gandhi believes that non-violence dare not be exchanged because what is attained in this manner, is not true independence. Another type of war we will now discuss is preventive war. Gary Becker and Richard Posner share the same views on preventive war, and they believe in some cases, preventive war is justified. Posner reasons that if you know with certainty you are about to be attacked, you are justified in trying to strike first. However, there must be a comparison of the costs and benefits to the nation before the decision to go to war is made. This is because it is possible that future attacks, although they have a lower probability of occurrence, may have a greater cost. Becker agrees with Posner in this respect, and goes on to discuss preventive actions that can be taken against those who intend to commit a crime.
Usually crimes of this sort apply to terrorist organizations and rogue nations. In such cases, preventive war is the only effective approach to inhibit their attacks. Therefore, those plotting an attack can be punished on the basis of intent. Since the evidence in these cases are less substantial, it is important to consider probabilities instead of certainties. Furthermore, the degree of certainty has been drastically reduced due to the increase of destructive weaponry. Due to this, Becker believes that the luxury of waiting to be attacked no longer exists, and preventive war is therefore
justified. I agree with the reasoning of Gary Becker and Richard Posner regarding preventive war. The fact is that with the advanced technology and weaponry available today we can no longer sit around and wait while terrorists and extreme nations threaten our security. Many arguments can be made against preventive war. Some may say there is not enough evidence to support just cause or that it is unlawful to declare war if a wrong has not yet been done. However, if there is a viable reason to believe another nation or group intends to do us harm, then I feel preventive war is completely justified. As Becker says, the intent to commit a crime, is a crime, and therefore is punishable. Of course we also have to compare the costs and benefits, but if the benefits outweigh the possible future costs, then preventive war is not only justifiable but also the right thing to do. A good example of the benefits preventive war could provide is the Nazi movement in Germany under Adolf Hitler. If Poland would have waged war against Germany sooner, when its troops were more than capable of carrying out a threat, a lot of devastation may have been avoided. Likewise, if the United States had not acted when they did, the world may be completely different today. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 also serve as a great example. That day in history had a great impact on American society and opened our eyes to the devastation that can be caused by terrorists. Anything that can be done to prevent further terrorist attacks, including preventive war, in my opinion is justified.
There are still others, however, who completely disagree. One such person is Mahatma Gandhi. I feel that Gandhi’s philosophy, while absolutely admirable, is a bit unrealistic. In a perfect world, everyone would solve problems in a non-violent manner. And while I still feel non-violence is the ideal approach to the resolution of problems, there are some instances when it is just not possible. I feel it is in our nature to defend ourselves against others who are out to cause us harm, and so to sit back and do nothing while we are being attacked, goes against our nature. I understand that Gandhi believes man’s true nature is that of non-violence, however I disagree. I believe self-preservation will almost always come first. I cannot imagine a situation in which myself or a loved one is being attacked or sexually assaulted, that I would still reach the conscious decision to react with non-violence and basically allow it to occur. Therefore, while I agree that Gandhi’s non-violent ways are commendable, I do not believe they coincide with our true nature as human beings to protect ourselves and others against those who aim to do us harm. In conclusion, the moral justification of any war is very difficult. There are many different philosophies and opinions on the subject and it raises a multitude of ethical questions and issues. However, I feel it is important to keep an open mind and consider, without bias, the reasons and justifications of all arguments made regarding war. This is the only way we can strive towards mutual understanding and peace.

References
Bonevac, Daniel. (2013). War.
In Bonevac, Daniel (Eds.), Today’s Moral Issues Classic & Contemporary Perspectives (pp.425-448). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.