The Ethics Of War Essay Research Paper

The Ethics Of War Essay, Research Paper

Root Entry

MatOST

MatOST

Microsoft Works

MSWorksWPDoc

Jason Bennett Ethics I

5-11-98 Paper #2

The Ethics of War Discussed

I choose to do my paper on the ethics of war, and plan to discuss the

morality and rules of war. One of the biggest reasons that I chose this topic is

that I was in the Army for a few years, and therefore have some insight and

concern on the subject of war. I do not think that my opinions will be biased

as I can still take an objective look at the arguments, but I do plan to argue

that the morality of war is relative to the situation.

I am generally in agreement with the author’s of the articles in our

textbook, and have read and understand their arguments. In “Morality of

Nuclear Armanent”, Connery discusses when it is and is not permissible to

use nuclear weapons to resolve a conflict. He starts out with several

statements that set the tone for his argument. He says that “Wars of

aggression are always impermissible” and “The only just war is a defensive

war…”. This means that it is never permissible to attack another country,

unless they have attacked or provoked you. Now this could be argued

because there are many situations that I believe would warrant military

aggression, that would not require an actual prior show of force. For

example, the situation in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during Operation Desert

Storm. Sadam Hussien did not attack the United States, nor did his actions

threaten the lives of U.S. citizens. I strongly believe however, that the U.S.

had every right, if not an obligation to intervene with military force. The U.S.

had economic interests to protect, as well as the defense of a small country

that could not defend itself against the hostile attack.

Connery also discusses the amount and type of force that is

permissible. He says, “In a defensive war, only proportional responses are

permissible to answer aggression. An exception is possible if the enemy is

extraordinarily well-armed and likely to use dis-proportionate force. For

instance, if my enemy were in possession of nuclear bombs which I had good

reason to believe he would use, it would be suicidal for me to choose the

more leisurely precision bombing.” This means that if the situation could be

resolved with a limited display of military force, then it is not necessary or

permissible to exceed this level of aggression in the attack. However, if the

enemy you are facing has superior weapons or is willing to use devastating

force against you, then you are permitted to use whatever actions necessary to

resolve the situation and save your own country.

The majority of Connery’s argument focuses on the morality of waging

indiscriminate warfare on non-combatants, i.e. non-soldiers, civilians. In his

article he says:

Moralists agree that the noncombatant may not be the direct target of

any destructive weapon, large or small. This means that one may

neither deliberately aim his attack at noncombatants nor drop bombs

without distinction on combatants and noncombatants alike. Such

bombing would be contrary to sound moral principles, even if

resorted to only in retaliation.

But granted a sufficiently important military target which could not

be safely eliminated by any less drastic means, nuclear bombing

would be morally justified, even if it involved the resultant loss of a

large segment of the civilian population. It is presumed, of course,

that the good to be achieved is at least equal to the expected damages.

I would tend to agree with this argument, that it would be morally permissible

to bomb civilians as long as the end justifies the means. But what justifies the

merciless slaughter of innocent people? Connery says, “But to be justified,

the loss of civilian life must be unavoidable and balanced by a proportionate

good to the defender.”

This view is not shared by Ford, who in his article “The Hydrogen

Bombing of Cities”, he argues that it is never permissible to kill

noncombatants.

It is never permitted to kill directly noncombatants in wartime. Why?

Because they are innocent. That is, they are innocent of the violent

and destructive action of war, or of any close participation in the

violent and destructive action of war. It is such participation alone

that would make them legitimate targets of violent repression

themselves….they are innocent of the one thing which in our theology

would make them legitimate targets of direct violence, namely violent

war-making, or sufficiently close cooperation in violent war-making.

While Ford makes a strong argument, I do not agree with his position on this

subject. I believe that civilian lives must be spared whenever it is possible to

do so. However, there are going to be situations where doin

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать