Evolution and Ethics of War

Introduction

In the traditional approach, war refers to the participation of the parties and it is inter-state conflict, where the main aim is to capture of enemy territory. In recent years, the definition of war has changed and it is almost coeval with humanity. There are different categories of war such as modern wars, new wars, total wars, absolute and limited wars. According to Lucas (2016), war is a continuation of politics by other means, where it is defined as an act of violence to fulfil the will of individuals. As stated by Lango (2016), rulers should be good to lead the country but sometimes it is a willingness of the leader to be evil if necessary. If you need assistance with psychology dissertation help, these perspectives on war and conflict can offer valuable insights into human behavior and societal dynamics. Sometimes war is considered to be the state of affairs which is necessary for the operations. War is therefore a part of human life where research explored that there are 14500 armed struggles over time and more than 3.5 billion people are dying either directly or indirectly. As opined by Coates (2016), it can be considered a social issue and there are some researchers, who find it political issues across the globe where the people are engaged in war to fulfil their will. The causes and the methods of war have altered over time through the impacts of nationalism, imperialism, armed force, and technological development. This essay discusses the ethics of war despite the destruction that has been caused due to war across the globe. It considers the ethical practice of war and the theory of just war to analyse the legal compliance and ethics of war irrespective of the result of the destruction. Through proper analysis and evaluation, finally, it identifies whether there exists ethics of war or not.

War and its impacts

According to Benbaji and Statman (2019), the definition of war varies according to different authors where it is like a social phenomenon as well as it can also be considered as a political and philosophical aspect where people are engaged in war. According to Perry (2016), it is a state of affairs that still exists even if the operations are not continued. On the other hand, Benbaji and Statman (2019) argued that it is a continuation of politics by other means where the political parties are engaged with each other to maximise the personal will. Due to conflicts among states and due to particularly political-rationalistic account, war exists between political parties and among countries which destroys international borders and relationships among political parties across the globe (Coates, 2016). War is therefore considered as ultimate destruction of air, earth water, animals where all human beings and animals are affected across the globe directly or indirectly (BBC, 2014a).

According to Frowe and Lazar (2018), there is technological innovation and the growth of terrorism across the globe, which raises the chance of war worldwide. Though the new ethical and legal approach of war has changed over the years, the nature of modern warfare becomes stronger due to technological innovation, rising political instability, willingness to fulfil the personal will across the globe, cyber weapons, attacking weapons and drones which could reduce collateral damage but their ease of creating more conflicts around the world, which incur a high political cost of engagement. According to Perry (2016), the international relationship among the countries has been affected due to war though the ethical norms of war are executed in the military forces and intervention planning (Bazargan and Rickless, 2017). The major causes of war are economic gain, territorial gain, nationalism, revenge, civil war, religion conflicts, revolutionary war, and defensive war. As stated by Lazar and Frowe (2018), war, therefore, destroys the social communities, families and often disrupts the smooth peace of development of the social and economic fabric of a nation, the effect of war is long term and there is physical and psychological harm that destroys the human life.

The most negative impacts of war are loss of human lives, destruction of capital, human suffering, spared of diseases as well as there are trade disruption, displacement of people, destruction of the environment and economic losses. The whole society is affected negatively due to war. The political parties and the social communities are engaged to fulfil their will and it has detrimental effects on society. As stated by Lazar and Frowe (2018), it also has detrimental effects on politics and economics where war can change foreign policies and practice. According to Frowe and Lazar (2018), there are some ethics of war, where the cause behind other war are justified properly so that it is possible for the political parties and social communities to be engaged with war in order to maximise their will. The ethics of war explores the moral limits and possibilities of the conflicts where the arguments of just war can be considered as an ethical practice of war which balances the rules or the principles against the moral capacity and disposition of particular circumstances (Lazar and Frowe, 2018). War is never ethically justifiable as initial invasions are unjust. The ethics of war can be evaluated through the theories and concepts, which are evaluated further (BBC, 2014b).

Just war theory

According to Frowe and Lazar (2018), from both the historical and moral perspective there is a strong presumption against the violence and aggression which takes place in society. Just war theory deals with the justification for control with strong presumption and waging war. Just war theory is the practice that represents the effort for western countries to regulate and restrain the violence by establishing recognised rules and conduct. It is necessary to mitigate aggressive behaviour and attacking behaviour during war rather it is necessary to restrain violence to consider the ethical justification of war. The rules of Jus ad bellum consider the circumstances under the states can acceptably wage war and on the other hand, the rules of jus in Bello describe the guidelines for fighting fairly once the war has begun. As stated by Bazargan and Rickless (2017), just war is a war where the war has been declared due to noble cause and right reason where fight can be done in a certain way. Just war is sometimes good where Christians feel that it is necessary to create just war circumstances for fulfilling the national will. Most Christians support the just war concept and it is considered to be legal if the war has a noble cause with an appropriate standard of war (BBC, 2014c).

According to the theory of just war, the war must have proper cause such as against invasion, for self-defence and it is not related to wealth and power. The war must be declared properly and controlled with proper authority where for example the state and the political ruler of the country can manage the war for one noble cause. According to the theory of just war, the war must be fought to promote good or avoid evil and the major aim of the war is to restore peace and justify the behaviour and action of the states (Fotion, 2019). The war must also be the last resort when all the peaceful solutions are tried and fail to negotiate. When war is for achieving some good activities rather than destructive, it is good for the social communities where the political parties and the rulers try to conduct war and achieve the will (BBC, 2014a). There are several conditions, under which the just war can be conducted which are,

The war must be for a noble cause

The war can be done after applying all the possible solutions and conducting proper negotiation

It must be lawfully declared and there is a lawful authority during the war

The intention behind the war must be good so that the wellbeing of the social communities as a whole can be maximised in future

All the other way of resolving the problems needs to be applied first and them of the ways are also effective, the war can be conducted

There must be a reasonable chance to succeed (Lazar, and Frowe, 2018)

The means of using must be proportionate to the end where the war seeks to achieve the success

The war should be fought in a simple way and it needs to be stopped, if there is no such reason and noble cause. The success of war is necessary to be appropriate and if the success is inappropriate it is also necessary to stop the war under the just war principles. In this regard, as per the theory, innocent people and non-combatants must not be harmed in society and only appropriate forces can be used during the war (Bazargan and Rickless, 2017). According to the just war concept, internationally agreed conventions are necessary to be obeyed for the parties so that international harmony and relationship can be maintained properly (Perry, 2016). Though the principles of just war theory are effective, there is confusion about the conduct of war which raises difficulties about though the war can be fought. As opined by Fotion (2019), it is necessary to understand the parties and the noble cause of war so that the reason for war can be justified. The forces need to be justified so that the negative impacts and harm during the war can be reduced in the long run. There are international conventions on war where people should obey international rules and obligations successfully so that international relations can be managed (Lazar, and Frowe, 2018). The war needs to be proportional and appropriate to win the battle. It is probably unethical to use the machine gun and other weapons to defeat the enemy (BBC, 2014d).

According to Bazargan and Rickless (2017), it is also unethical to kill the soldiers in case of military battle where armies are involved. In the recent era of technical advancement, there are chemical and biological weapons and these are banned by the Geneva Protocol in 1925. There is also growing usage of landmines and these are indiscriminate weapons which can cause great harm to civilians and thus it is also considered to be inherently evil. There are also certain military methods which are also considered as intrinsically evil such as genocide and torture and so on (Lazar, and Frowe, 2018). On the other hand, The Hague Convention of 1907 bans poison or poisonous weapons. Killing or wounding treacherously as well as wounding an enemy having laid down his arms and no longer means of defence and has surrounded at discretion. Therefore, the conventions and the international rules must be applied during war as per the theory of just war, where the civilians must consider the noble cause of war so that they are able to achieve success and fulfil the goodwill (BBC, 2014a).

Jus ad bellum

The principle of jus ad bellum is effective to consider the way of conducting the war peacefully. Through considering the principles of jus ad bellum, it is possible to conduct the war ethically where the destruction can be minimised and the goodwill can be maximised through war. The central principles of jus ad bellum are right intension, reasonable hope, proportionately, last resort and the right authority. The principle of right authority indicates that the war is just only conducted of it is waged by the legitimate authority (Bazargan and Rickless, 2017). The authority is rooted in the notion of state sovereignty and it is derived from popular consent. As stated by Bazargan and Rickless (2017), if the authority did not sanction the war, it is not justified to initiate war. It is therefore important to get proper authority signature where the rulers can pursue the war. However, in this case, a corrupt government that rules arbitrarily and unjustly may not warrant the allegiance of the people in society and in this regard it is difficult to get proper and authentic authority of the rulers in initiating the war. In such cases, state sovereignty disintegrates and individual rights need to be considered during the war so that it is possible for the rulers to defend themselves from the illegitimate government in society (BBC, 2014e).

On the other hand, according to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be pursue narrowly and it is necessary to define the national interest rather than just re-establishing peace. The state of peace should be preferable to the conditions where right intention must be maximised. According to Brunstetter and Holeindre (2018), right intention is considered with indiscriminate violence and vengeance and there needs to have a proper objective of the war to justify the state of peace. Unconditional surrender in this regard is considered to violate the principle of the rights of intention where it deprives a notion of rights and sovereignty. Additionally, it is important to secure peace in the environment, where it is also mandatory to protect the self-interest. It is also necessary to protect self-interest and peace across neighbour’s territory where proper intention of self-interest can be maximised well. Securing freedom and managing human rights are also essential to be managed during the war according to the principle of jus ad bellum (BBC, 2014b).

According to the principle of jus ad bellum, there must have a reasonable chance to achieve success and fulfil the goodwill and purpose of the war where it can be stated that ethics of war can be justified if it is not destructive. The principle of proportionality is also necessary to be managed during the war, where there is authentic and proportionate purpose of initiating the war in society. The states are prohibited to use the forces and it is necessary to obey the international rules and legislations to maintain international harmony (Bazargan and Rickless, 2017). Hereby, just war can consist of ethics if the purpose of the war is good and there is proper authority of initiating the war. Just cause is also a principle of jus ad bellum where the reason for initiating the war must be justified and it must carry sufficient moral weight. The country wishes to use military forces to demonstrate the cause of the war and achieve future success. As opined by Brunstetter and Holeindre (2018), just war is considered to be an effective ethical way to initiate the war where the negative impacts of war or wring purpose can be avoided. There are several just causes where war can be considered as ethical and it is possible to conduct the war and after which the authority can ensure global peace and harmony among the international borders. Hereby, the principle of jus ad bellum is effective to initiate the war ethically and influences the civilians to engage in the war for achieving some good purpose (BBC, 2014f).

Just cause

According to the principle of jus ad bellum, just causes are considered to be effective to initiate war ethically and it is also helpful to maximise the good purpose. Self-defence is the major cause of war that can be conducted ethically. The just cause is self-defence against an aggressor where for example when the enemy has crossed your borders and invaded the territory. It is necessary to manage global harmony and peace, so that interrelation among the countries can be developed well. there are some causes which are not justified in initiating the war such as attacking a neighbour orally, attacking state religion, attacking national honour including burning flags and tacking on the embassy as well as a pre-emptive strike for attacking the enemy to prevent anticipated attack by them. These causes are not considered to be a noble cause for war, where ethics of initiating the war are violated (Frowe and Lazar, 2018). According to Brunstetter and Holeindre (2018), assisting a friendly nation and human rights are also necessary to be maintained so that the right of the human being can be maximised even in the condition of war.

According to St. Augustine’s view, there are three major just cases which are defending against attack, recapturing things taken, punishing the people who are engaged in illegal activities in society and these are effective cause for initiating war (Lucas, 2016). Each of the cases are justified where harm in the society can be minimised well and goodwill can be maximised in future. As per the modern definition, it can be stated that just cause is considered to be the forces that may be utilised only to correct the grave, public evil, aggression and massive violation of the basic human rights of the whole population (Frowe and Lazar, 2018). Therefore human rights play a crucial role during the war so that the rules of the war cannot be violated and it is possible to create values for the social communities as a whole. Hence, it can be stated that war, which is not destructive, can be initiated under legal compliance and ethical ground where the purpose of the war should be clear (BBC, 2014c).

JusBello

The rule of jus in Bello serves as the guideline for fighting well where the war has already begun. The morality and ethics cannot be maintained if the war has already been started and thus it is necessary to apply just war theory and the principle of jus in Bello is effective to justify the cause war and maintain the rules and international legislation to maintain international relationship and peace in the social communities worldwide. One is entitled to do with managing the rules and legislations to ensure victory and on the other hand, there is a moral framework under which it is possible to initiate the war (Lango, 2016). As stated by Brunstetter and Holeindre (2018), the state of humanitarian law can be applied in a conflict which further regulates the conduct of the military forces. The rules of warfare aim to safeguard the human being and maximise some fundamental rights of people in society. In this regard, it is necessary to ensure that war is limited in its scope and level of violence where neither discrimination nor proportionality serves to be avoided (Bazargan and Rickless, 2017). According to the principle of jus in Bello, the individual is responsible for their actions during warfare and it is mandatory to obey the rule of fair conduct so that every individual is protected and secured under the legal provision (BBC, 2014a).

International law suggests that there is government authority, which protects human rights, and it would also be the responsibility of the individual to follow the rules and legal provisions during the war so that the violence can be avoided. The principle of discrimination recognises the individual with moral standing is independent of and resistance to the experience of war (Bazargan and Rickless, 2017). No individual being attacked unless he is trying to attack others during the war and just war theory is applicable properly in a war, where human rights can also be implemented well (Coates, 2016). Proportionality is considered to identify what kind of forces can be applicable during the war and it is effective to minimise destruction and causalities at war (Frowe and Lazar, 2018). Central to proportionality is that the parties can use force with a similar opposing force it needs to ensure that evil and destruction cannot be greater than good. It is also right of the solders where soldiers have the power to use their force to stabilise the situation and manage harmony and peace. Hereby according to the principle of jus in Bello, proportionality, discriminatory and military necessity is effective to manage war and maintain the ethics of initiating the war which would be effective to achieve victory in near future (BBC, 2014d).

Critical analysis of ethics of war

According to Lazar and Frowe (2018), initially, war is not morally justified as there is destruction of the social communities and other activities in the society for which the human being is suffering a lot. Hereby, war is not justified at the ethical ground and legal provision where the reasons are numerous false. Aggression, force armed and other use of weapons deteriorate the peace and harmony among the international borders. In this context, just war theory is effective and useful to understand the ethical ground of war where there are some major principles under, which war can be considered as ethical, if not destructive. Though war is destructive, there are some good reasons, for which war can be happened such as a bid of freedom, medical marvels, boosting the economy, breaking the economy, improving harmony and freedom and lasting effects (Brunstetter and Holeindre, 2018). Hereby, according to the principle of just war theory, it is necessary to have appropriate reason and noble cause of initiating the war in the society so that it is possible to ensure that future victory can be achieved soon (Benbaji and Statman, 2019). For maximising the wellbeing of the society, war can be considered as ethical, where the rulers and the civilians must take care of the international rules and guidelines according to the principles of just war theory, so that war can be conducted positively without destruction, aggression and death (BBC, 2014c).

As stated by Benbaji and Statman (2019), for example, war can be conducted to change the foreign policies and in this regard, World War II is considered to be effective to change the international policies and stabilise the world economy, which further helps to improve intra-country relationship. Intra-country relationship is basically arranging the power between the international countries. During the cold war, the international countries try to maintain harmony in order to stabilise the economy, politics, business, international trade, communication system, international security, ecological sustainability, nuclear power and state sovereignty. On the other hand, for example, the Indo-Pak War 1971 is also effective where the right of self-autonomy and self-determination in Bangladesh was maximised. Therefore there are some noble causes for which war can be conducted as ethical. Additionally, the causes of the American Revolutionary War during 1775 and 1783 are such as improving harmony among the colonies, growing unity, the establishment of the continental congress, restructuring the tax policies and other finance-related legislations in the country which are also considered as an effective reason for which the wellbeing of the social communities as a whole can be maximised well (BBC, 2014e; Brunstetter and Holeindre, 2018). Therefore, it can be stated that war can be considered on the ethical ground, where noble cause must be maximised (Bazargan and Rickless, 2017). Social wellbeing must be maximised, where the rulers and political parties must manage war ethically by applying no such forces and weapons, managing international rules and policy to maintain harmony and freedom across international borders and also fulfilling the responsibility of the individuals to act positively and participate actively without any harassment, aggression and attacking mindset (BBC, 2014f).

Summary

According to the analysis and evaluation, it can be stated that war can be conducted peacefully to fulfil the god objective and maximise the noble cause of the war. It is necessary for the rulers and the political parties to protect the civilians and improve safety and security in the society where they try to maintain an international relationship with other international countries by managing peace and harmony. After applying all the necessary solutions and proper negotiation, it is necessary to initiate war with a proper cause so that the goodwill of the individuals can be achieved further. In this regard, just war theory is effective to understand the ethics of war and the possible circumstances where war can be considered as an ethical practice. According to the just war theory, it is necessary for the rulers and the social leader to provide clear and concise cause and noble reason for war so that it can be ensured that the war is for achieving victory in the future (Brunstetter and Holeindre, 2018). Additionally, there must be the principle of discriminatory, right authority, right intention, and proportionality. It is also necessary for the rulers and the civilians to ensure that there would be a success in the future through war. Generally, war is not morally supported, but in some cases, it is considered to be ethical and just war theory is justified in this context where the forces cannot be used during the war and the individuals and the rulers need to follow the international rules and legal provision to initiative the war ethically (Bazargan and Rickless, 2017). Hereby, it can be concluded that war can be ethical, despite the destruction it causes.

Reference List

Bazargan, S. and Rickless, S.C., 2017. The Ethics of War: Essays. London: Oxford University Press.

BBC, 2014a. What is a 'just cause'?. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/cause_1.shtml [Accessed on 11 March 2020].

BBC, 2014b. What is a Just War?. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/what.shtml [Accessed on 11 March 2020].

BBC, 2014c. Against the Theory of the Just War. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/against.shtml [Accessed on 11 March 2020].

BBC, 2014d. Ethics of war – introduction. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/introduction.shtml [Accessed on 11 March 2020].

BBC, 2014e. The conduct of war. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/conduct.shtml [Accessed on 11 March 2020].

BBC, 2014f. Pacifism. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/against/pacifism_1.shtml [Accessed on 11 March 2020].

Benbaji, Y. and Statman, D., 2019. War by Agreement: A Contractarian Ethics of War. London: Oxford University Press.

Brunstetter, D.R. and Holeindre, J.V., 2018. The ethics of war and peace revisited: moral challenges in an era of contested and fragmented sovereignty. London: Georgetown University Press.

Coates, A.J., 2016. The ethics of war. London: Manchester University Press.

Fotion, N., 2019. The Ethics of War, edited by Saba Bazargan-Forward and Samuel C. Rickless. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 16(1), pp.85-88.

Frowe, H. and Lazar, S., 2018. The Ethics of War. In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War.

Lango, J. W., 2016. THE ETHICS OF ARMED CONFLICT. [online] Available at: file:///D:/Debasmita/March/HOD26808/469286.pdf [Accessed on 11 March 2020].

Lazar, S. and Frowe, H., 2018. The Ethics of War. In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. London: Oxford University Press.

Lucas, G., 2016. The ethics of war. [online] Available at: https://blog.oup.com/2016/03/military-war-ethics/ [Accessed on 11 March 2020].

Perry, D.L., 2016. Partly cloudy: Ethics in war, espionage, covert action, and interrogation. London: Rowman& Littlefield.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Evolution and Application of Offender Profiling.