Moral Problems: Is it true that, "All's fair in war?"

When examining whether a specific war is considered the right thing to do (often referred to as a "just war") it is valuable to step back and consider exactly what makes any war just. This topic has been explored in depth since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274).

Before examining his criteria for a just war, consider some questions. What are your criteria? Is there any justifiable reason for going to war? Also, within war, are there unjustifiable actions or is anything permitted?

Just War Theory was initially posited by Aquinas and has since been examined throughout present day. In its basic form, Just War Theory holds five conditions that must be met in order for a war to be considered just:

• having a just cause,
• declared by a proper authority,
• carried out for the right intentions,
• there should be a reasonable chance of success, and
• that the end (goal) is proportional to the means (methods) used.

In your opinion, are these conditions sufficient? Are there concepts in these criteria that seem debatable such as,

• who determines if a cause is just?
• who is considered a proper authority to declare such a serious activity?
• how do we determine if intentions are "right"?
• how do we determine what the chance of success is? What is reasonable? Why is this a criterion to begin with?

Just War Theory also gives criteria for right actions in war i.e. the rules of war. There are three main principles that guide this:

• proportionality the attack should be proportional to the need.
• discrimination the acts of war should be aimed at the opposing soldiers and not at civilians.
• use of fair means: there are certain weapons that are considered unethical to use in war such as bullets that flatten when they hit their target and certain types of gas. Also, it demands that soldiers honor the "surrender" flag (i.e. and not kill after the surrender) as well as having rules of how to treat prisoners of war.

Source:

Jack Bowen, Ian's Philosophy Club, © 2004, web site found at http://eclipse.websitewelcome.com/~iansphil/.

This activity contains 2 questions.

	Do you think it makes sense to apply ethics to war? Is it realistic? Could you trust your enemy to follow the same rules? If not, how would this affect your view of ethics in war? (When you think about these issues, try to imagine that you are in an actual battlefield situation and what might be going through your head at the time.)   To create paragraphs in your essay response, type <p> at the beginning of the paragraph, and </p> at the end.

	In looking at what it means for a war to be just, we must also consider the Hindu ethic of ahimsa, or, nonviolence. Gandhi combated the forceful British through such passive methods as boycott, peaceful protest, and fasting. Gandhi believed that nonviolent "conversion" was much more powerful than "coercion" of war. Martin Luther King, Jr. used similar nonviolent methods to defend human rights. Could this method be more effective than the violence of war? Some argue that "violence breeds violence" would practicing ahimsa avoid this problem?   To create paragraphs in your essay response, type <p> at the beginning of the paragraph, and </p> at the end.

Copyright © 1995 - 2010 Pearson Education . All rights reserved. Pearson Longman is an imprint of Pearson . Legal Notice | Privacy Policy | Permissions