War as a consequentialist idea

If he had been stopped at the beginning say when he violated the Treaty of Versailles and reintroduced conscription inor when he occupied the Rhineland inor when he was appeased with the Sudetenland in many millions of civilians and soldiers unjustly fighting for the NAZIs which apparently counts just the same under the reasoning above would not have been killed.

From the just war justum bellum tradition, theorists distinguish between the rules that govern the justice of war jus ad bellum from those that govern just and fair conduct in war jus In bello and the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war jus post bellum.

Prima facie pacifism War as a consequentialist idea the burden of proof upon the proponent of war: Most often they believe that their cause is just, and that this is a legitimate means to bring it about. Also, whereas completely ignoring enemy combatant casualties may be inappropriate, it would seem entirely reasonable to discount them substantially versus the value of other innocent lives.

Descriptive collectivists deny this, thinking that some acts are irreducibly collective. They helped explain why wars of national defence are permissible, but also make justifying humanitarian intervention harder.

The concern here is that if pacifists are unwilling to fight to defend the nation, then they effectively betray the nation and help the enemy.

Contingent Pacifism This distinction organizes different answers to the question of how obligated we are to reject violence and war. This idea of particular pacifism is a subtle one. Further discussions should more systematically consider how such ideas have spread to Latin America, East Asia, and the Muslim world, as well as the ways that nonviolence shows up in the religious and philosophical traditions of the rest of the world.

Such an argument would imply that it is right to attack unarmed soldiers or soldiers who have surrendered or who are enjoying the normality of civilian life, which just war theorists and historical conventions have traditionally rejected on the claim that when a soldier lays down his weapons or removes his uniform, he or she returns to civilian life and hence the status of the non-combatant even if that return is temporary.

Nonetheless, much of the killing done by unjust combatants in war is still objectively wrong. There are deontological concerns behind this sort of pacifism—with regard to concern for noncombatants.

Just War Theory

Moore and Hastings Rashdall tries to meet the difficulty by advocating a plurality of ends and including among them the attainment of virtue itself, which, as John Stuart Mill affirmed, "may be felt a good in itself, and desired as such with as great intensity as any other good".

A different skeptical argument, one advanced by Michael Walzer, is that the invention of nuclear weapons alters war so much that our notions of morality—and hence just war theories—become redundant.

However the sanctions excluded vital materials such as oil, and were not carried out by all members of the League. In this version of contingent pacifism, the prohibition against violence only applies to those who take a vow or make a pledge to renounce violence and war.

We can resolve this worry in one of two ways.

Wartime Ethics: The Bombing of Dresden

The just war tradition, however, allows that innocent noncombatants may be killed according to the principle of double effect. The positive ideal of peace can point beyond the merely political realm and aim toward spiritual transformation.

But these reasons cannot contribute to ad bellum proportionality in the same way, because they are conditional on the war as a whole being fought.

But this is not always true, since absolute pacifism might be justifiable on consequentialist grounds as a rule that War as a consequentialist idea in the long run produce good consequences. Consequentialism is much more practicable and easier to apply to everyday life and real world problems.

Jains, Buddhists, and others in the Indian tradition share a commitment to ahimsa or nonviolence as a cardinal virtue see Howard They claim that the firebombing of a cultural site at the closing of the war was retribution for the bombing of London and Russian cities.

Thus those who are committed to liberal values should not support war. Those who kill civilians pointlessly express their total disregard for their victims in doing so. There may be variable judgments among consequentialists about whether some wars produce more harm than good.

But the further question to be asked from the standpoint of consequentialism is whether the harms that occur in the near-term are outweighed by the long-term benefits of the war.

Ultimately, Consequentialism is something morally and psychologically debilitating. Some may claim that the best we can do to make peace is to reach a state of detente that is made possible by mutual deterrent force. He argues further that consequentialism fails to make sense of intuitions that it can matter whether or not someone is personally the author of a particular consequence.Deontology vs.

Consequentialism Essay Sample. Even though Deontology and Consequentialism can be extremely similar, both contain key factors that make each idea unique and very different. Still others have argued that Consequentialism fails to appropriately take into account the people affected by a particular action (e.g.

a Consequentialist cannot really criticize human rights abuses in a war if they ultimately result in a better state of affairs). Jan 26,  · Wartime Ethics: The Bombing of Dresden. Updated on January 26, Just War Theory is the idea that a flexible series of rules allow a state to engage and fight enemies will provide the best outcome for the largest number of people.

Consequentialism is the theory best summed up by the phrase ”the ends justify the Reviews: 4. Consequentialism, the Moral Philosophy of the West euthanasia and even false notions of a just war.

Consequentialism claims to draw the criteria of the rightness of a given way of acting solely from a calculation of foreseeable consequences deriving from a given choice. Moral philosopher Bernard Williams criticized Conseqentialism on. Start studying PHL Final Prep, Ethics Final, Ethics Final Exam, Ethics Final exam Quizes, Ethics Final.

Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. the idea that sex is morally acceptable only between a man and a woman who are legally married to each other. utilitarians on war. [Editor's Note: The following new entry by Seth Lazar replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author.] Some reject the very idea of the “morality of war”.

[] Of those, some deny that morality applies at all once the guns strike up; for others, no plausible moral theory could license the exceptional horrors of war.

War as a consequentialist idea
Rated 0/5 based on 55 review