Ethics and Morality in Modern Warfare Assignment

Ethics and Morality in Modern Warfare Assignment Words: 2080

Restricted Warfare: Ethics and Morality In Modern Warfare. The Ethics of War In recent years, the world has seen a sharp rise in wars across the globe. What was meant to be the first century not scarred by war quickly turned Into a bloodbath In the wake of terrorist attacks In the united States and Europe. In response to these attacks on Cleveland populations the united States engaged In two preemptive wars on those who harbored terrorists. These wars have now been lasting for five years and recently the number of American and other Coalition soldiers fallen on the battlefield has risen to over 4000.

These current issues that surround and heavily influence the world we live in makes us ask the question. How can these deaths and these wars be justified? The answer to this question is that, In a greater scope, although war is an undeniable evil, there exist worse things on this earth than death, and In times of great trial man has the moral obligation to use force In the hope of greater harmony for humanity. It is the tragic acceptance that war, within certain moral and ethical boundaries, can be Just, has been necessary, and will continue to be so as long as humans are capable of a greater evil.

Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!

order now

When speaking of Just war, there exist certain boundaries and rules that must be met to make It Just. First, In any case, because a war Is Just, it Is never considered a good act. It Is only permissible because It Is a lesser evil. Moreover, war must be carried out In a Just way. That Is to say, war must be Jus ad bellum (BBS), Just In cause, and Jus in belle (BBC just in how it is carried out. It is not impossible that a war that was just in cause was not carried out in a proper manner and therefore it became unjust.

The best example would be the Balkans where both aggressors and fenders who had the noble cause of defending themselves, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Both sides appeared In front of the Hogue tribunals to be sanctioned for their actions. Jus ad bellum refers to the cause why the war Is fought. There exist certain criteria that must be met to make a war just. It must have a Just cause. It must be the last resort. There has to be a reasonable chance of success.

The means to wage the war must be proportional to the end the nation seeks to achieve. If all these criteria are met, then we may Justify war. A war is just if it is against something worse than war itself. One of the best examples is to prevent genocide. If we look Into the past century, there have been multiple genocides from Armenia In 1915 to 1 923, to the Holocaust In the sass’s and sass’s and even more recently, Darker, Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia. In face of this much greater evil. It is humanity moral obligation to come in aid to the targeted population.

Failure to do so in the appropriate manner only results in an even greater number of deaths, as was shown in the early years of WI when ally nations did not intervene to the “ethnic cleansing’ of Germany, Austria, Poland and Bohemia. Ha ten allies cleared war, tense would nave Eden Tar Tower AAA In Eastern Europe in concentration camps. This is the ultimate proof that protecting innocence and important moral values sometimes requires the will to use force in proportion to the willingness to do evil of the aggressor.

War is the final step when all other negotiation has failed and the cause is morally Justifiable. This Justification leads to the fact that Countries exist to defend their citizens and war is one of those means. Calculates famously suggested that war is “the continuation of policy by other means. The very nature of the United Nations is to dissolve conflict before it turns to war, there exist many means of non violent resolution, and all of these should be tried first before engaging in war.

However it should be noted that “last resort” refers to a sequence of time, where war is the final step, it is an argument that war should only be waged when all reasonable alternatives have been used. “War should be the least preferred course of action, but not necessarily the course of action that isn’t tried until after every other course of action has failed. ” (BBS). This is because dating can have the adverse effect that the enemy is inflicting more damage to a population while the others hesitate to engage in war, such as in the case of WI.

In war, there must also be a reasonable chance of success. This perhaps the most controversial criteria as success is difficult to explain. It serves no purpose to be in a war against far superior powers to be slaughtered, this would be considered immoral and unjust as it is only sending men to their death. Yet, as is often the case of resistance and guerrilla movements, success is also preventing the enemy from establishing an unjust peace.

Such as was the case in the invasion of Finland by the Red Army, or the resistance movements in France and Yugoslavia against the Nazi Finally, a war must be proportional to the ends that a nation seeks to Occupation. Achieve. This is even more relevant in the days of modern nuclear weapons and other “indiscriminate” weapons. Killing indiscriminately massive amounts of civilians cannot be regarded as acceptable in any case. This makes the use of any WIND contrary to the Just War theory. This leads us on to the second part of a Just war, jus in belle, or how a war should be conducted.

There have been many arguments or and against in this area. Most say that war has certain limits of decency that should never be infringed, these include war crimes, crimes against humanity, the use of child combatants, killing Pop’s or civilians, and much more as is discussed in the U. N. Geneva Convention on Warfare. Others believe in unrestricted war or that in war everything is means to an end and that the use of force is always legitimate (Cool. Ciao, Cool. Wang). This theory however is uncommon in the west and is not pardonable in front of an international war tribunal, notably The Hogue.

First, only combatants should be targeted in war. These include soldiers of all ranks as well as civilians who show a will to cause harm. Once again, this is subject to interpretation as military medical staff and chaplains are essentially non-combatants but are members of a military force while civilians who contribute to the manufacture or distribution of weapons and food to soldiers can be considered threats to the opposing force and can be regarded as targets. I short, is it wrong to bomb a factory that produces ammunition to kill soldiers from your forces?

According to the Just war theory the answer would be “no”, if it will prevent more men room death than those incurred in the bombing. In conducting war, the force snouts De “proportional”, Tanat Is to say no more tan want Is anemia to wall ten war. This is a dilemma in the case of asymmetrical warfare where one large army such as the United States is confronted to poorly armed yet ferocious enemies willing to sacrifice themselves and civilian populations. Therefore, a town should never be razed unless there exists no other option viable to the success of the mission.

It is certainly unethical to kill the soldiers of an army that has surrendered. In addition, paeans that cause unnecessary destruction or pain are considered unacceptable and lead to indictment for war crimes. If all the preceding conditions of Jus ad bellum and Jus in belle are met, the war is said to avoid a greater evil and is considered Just. War is thus the appropriate manner of action. Nevertheless, two very different approaches argue that this is not so. First is that the “decision to wage war is governed by realism and relative strength, not ethics; morality thus has no use in war” (BBS).

The second is that all war is unjust and is never ethical. Yet both of hose appear illogical and irresponsible if the past and present world order is taken Although opponents to war under any circumstance, that is to say into account. Pacifists, are driven by the utmost respect for human life, this in no case makes them worthy humanists but rather people who are failing to carry out an important moral obligation “The pacifist, it is said, refuses to take the brutal measures necessary for the defense of himself and his country, for the sake of maintaining his own inner moral purity.

It is contended that the pacifist is thus a kind of free-rider, gathering all he benefits of citizenship while not sharing all its burdens” (Water). This is because war is a last resort to ward Off greater evil. In short, “all that is necessary for evil for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (Edmund Burke). Secondly, Pacifism has no place in the face of extreme evil. For example, the war against Nazi Germany was a war against extreme wickedness (BBS).

In the words of George Orwell, “Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively he pacifist is pro-Nazi. ” Pacifism can therefore be defined as the failure to carry out necessary measures to ensure harmony and peace, this because all other means have already been tried. On the other hand, another completely different theory opposes the Just war theory.

It lies in the fact that the existence of nuclear, chemical and biological Wand’s can only be used for unrestricted war and so the condition of proportionality cannot be met if they are used. Moreover using these weapons guarantees massive, indiscriminate, civilian casualties, and thus breaks a basic rule of Jus ad belle (BBS). Because these weapons cannot be ignored and are ever more present in the stability of the current world order they make Just war theory useless and outdated. However, this theory relies on an outdated war theorem between two or more large and powerful nations.

This is not the case of most modern wars, which are borderless and asymmetric. War is, however Just or unjust, a brutal enterprise. It is always a Pyrrhic victory that costs much to all involved. Meet it remains central to human history and social change. These two facts together might seem paradoxical and inexplicable, or they might reveal deeply disturbing facets of he human character. What is certainly true, in any event, is that war and its threat continue to be forces in our lives.

Recent events graphically demonstrate this proposition, whether we think of the 9-11 attacks, the counter-attack on Afghanistan, ten overthrow AT Iraq’s samara Hussein, ten Darter crawls In Sudan, ten Dongles In Madrid and London, or the on-going “war on terror” more generally. We all had high hopes going into the new millennium. “(Rend) War is Justifiable because, although it is inarguably an evil endeavor, it is often the only means to end a much greater violation of the human body and spirit.

Looking back into the dark and lamentable past of human crimes against his brother, we must see the absolute obligation to act in the hopes of a stable peace. When a man is struck by disease, it is sometimes necessary to amputate the already condemned parts to save the rest of the body. There is always a faint hope that it can be solved another way, but at times of trial there must be a decision to sacrifice to serve the greater good. It is a tragic acceptance that the death of dignity, innocence, and the future is ever more tragic than the death of oneself as well as the killing of others.

How to cite this assignment

Choose cite format:
Ethics and Morality in Modern Warfare Assignment. (2022, Feb 02). Retrieved April 14, 2024, from