Flashcards
Applied Ethics: War and Peace
Cards in this deck (20)
- 1What is Just War Theory.A theory of the conditions under which it is permissible to fight a war. Origins in Greek and Roman philosophers, but was developed by Augustine and Aquinas.
- 2What are the conditions for jus ad bellum?1. Just cause
2. Last resort
3. Legitimate authority
4. Right intention
5. Reasonable chance of success
6. Proportional - 3What are the conditions for jus in bello?1. Weapons used proportionally
2. Non-combatants not targeted
3. Torture always impermissible - 4What are two general objections to just war theory?1. Pacifist objection: morality is opposed to deliberate violence under all conditions
2. The realist objection: morality has no place in war, and just war theory may be self defeating because abiding by it can reduce the probability of success. - 5What does the deontological pacifism of Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism hold in common?The principle of Ahimsa. One is forbidden from committing any kind of violence (physical, verbal, or mental) to any sentient creature.
- 6What is the basis for Christian deontological pacifism?The words of Jesus.
E.g. in the Sermon on the Mount:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."
"Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to them the left cheek also." - 7Which Christian denominations have pacifist leanings?The quakers are the most notable example—they reject all forms of violence.
Jehovah's witnesses believe that readiness to lay down one's life for one's country constitutes idolatry. - 8What is consequentialist pacifism?The view that non-violent methods are almost always a more effective way of resolving conflicts than violent methods.
- 9‘The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.' Who said this?Martin Luther King
- 10What is the point of the above quote, and what support does it lend to consequentialist pacifism?Non-violent conflict aims at converting, rather than conquering, the opponent. This means that what is defeated are not just people, but the very ideas that make these people enemies. Non-violent methods therefore deal with the conflict at a deeper level, and are therefore likely to have a longer lasting impact.
- 11What techniques did Gandhi use to end British colonial rule in India?Peaceful demonstrations
Hunger strikes
Strikes
Civil disobedience
Blockades - 12What are some objections to pacifism?1. Pacifism is not a plausible national policy. Violence is the only means to defend national sovereignty against invasive aggression. Moreover, failure of the state to use violence when necessary constitutes a violation of the duty of the state to protect its citizens.
2. Pacifism can be paradoxical: there can be cases where violence is a better means to peace than non-violence.
3. Pacifism is culpably impotent in the case of extreme evils, such as the Nazi regime. - 13What is Michael Walzer's thesis of the moral equality of soldiers?An interpretation of just war theory. All conscripted soldiers are morally equal whether they are fighting for a just cause or for an unjust cause. In both cases, they are not bound by jus ad bellum, but are bound by jus in bello.
- 14How does Walzer defend the moral equality of soldiers thesis?Six considerations:
(1) Individual is coerced into taking part (drafted), and would be punished if he refused.
(2) Individual has a moral investment in the state.
(3) Patriotism
(4) It is difficult for the individual to know the justice of his country's cause, so if he has no reason to think it unjust, he ought to fight for it.
(5) It takes supererogatory courage to publicly doubt the state's reasons for going to war.
(6) Most conscripts are very young. - 15What are some objection to the equality of soldiers thesis?1. Just because a solider bears no responsibility for his country's decision to go to war, doesn't mean he bears no responsibility for taking part in it.
2. If an individual is not responsible for taking part in a war when the state commands him to do so, why is he still responsible for what he does when carrying out the state's commands in the course of fighting?
3. Concerning Walzer's six considerations: they take the form of excuses, not justifications. But if (4) is valid, then the soldier is justified in fighting, and does not need to be excused. - 16What is Walzer's argument concerning the innocence of civilians?Walzer approves of the central tenet of jus in bello that civilians should have immunity from deliberate attack. We are all immune to start with, and only forfeit this immunity by (1) becoming a soldier; (2) holding high office and taking part in decision making concerning the war; (3) working in an arms or ammunitions factory. In all these cases, one is "currently engaged in the business of war", and this makes one a legitimate object of attack.
- 17What are some objections to Walzer's view about the innocence of civilians?1. When a country is waging an unjust war, its civilians may be bound to do something about it, and culpable if they do not.
2. In the case of a perfect democracy, why should civilians who voted for the war be considered innocent?
3. Michael Green: this view of the innocence of civilians is outdated. Post French Revolution, the political decision makers carry out the will of the people, and so a war is truly a war between nations, with everyone involved. - 18How might a rule against targeting civilians still be justified even if the argument about the innocence of civilians fails?On rule utilitarian grounds—its justification can lie in the good consequences that follow from its adoption by both sides of the conflict.
- 19What does Igor Primoratz think about the validity of the jus in bello principle of not targeting civilians?It depends on several other factors:
1. Democratic vs non-democratic
2. Active support/ passive support / opposition
3. Adults vs minors - 20Why does Igor Primoratz arrive at similar conclusions to Walzer?For different reasons. The jus in bello principle against targeting civilians is valid not because civilians are innocent, but for the practical reason that the bullets and shells cannot seek out the culpable civilians from the innocent ones.
Information
- Description
- Pre-U Philosophy Pre-U (Paper 3) Flashcards on Applied Ethics: War and Peace, created by muon neutrino on 31/05/2018.
- Created by
- muon neutrino
- Views
- 0
- Rating