An Inquiry into the Moral Principles for Just WAR THEORY
- J-INSTITUTE
- Robotics & AI Ethics
- International journal of justice & law vol.1 no.2
-
2016.121 - 8 (8 pages)
- 70

What I wish to show in this paper is to inquire whether we can justify war or not by using these normative ethical systems, if possible, what the logic justifying the war is. Teleological ethics and deontological ethics are often contrasted with one another on the basis of the general type of ethical system each exemplifies. Utilitari-anism is one of the teleological ethical system, while formalism is typical of deontological ethical system. The distinction between the two kinds of system may be conveniently summarized as follows; a teleological theory holds that an action is morally right either if a person s doing it brings about good consequences, or if the action is of a kind which if everyone did it, would have good consequences. It is ultimately the goodness or badness of the consequences of action. In Deontological theory, it is right if it accords with a moral rule, wrong if it violates such a rule. Moral rules are based on an ultimate principle of duty which, in contrast to teleological ethics, does not specify an end or purpose whose furtherance makes actions right. What the ultimate principle specifies is a set of conditions that are necessary and sufficient for any rule of moral obligation to apply to a kind of action. Consequentialist pacifism is usually grounded in some sort of rule-utilitarianism. A utilitarian pacifist may argue that a rule against war or other sorts of violence will tend to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. According to the principle of proportionality, although violence is evil, if we may suffer greater other evil than the evil, the violence which eliminates relatively the previous smaller evil could be justified. A broader pro-hibition against violence other than war can extend the ‘greatest happiness’ concept to take into account the happiness of sentient beings other than humans. Deontological ethical system, as a formal ethical model, is the older of the two, with the best-recorded example of antiquity being divine command theory. This theory states that an action is good or evil depending on whether it corresponds to rules set by a deity. The most famous theory of deontological ethics is Kant s. Kant s categorical imperative is formulated as follows: “Act according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. It is difficult to supply content to Kant’s imperative. Thus, it is not clear that the Kantian imperative can be used to rule out war. Indeed, Kant is a defender of a version of the just war theory, in part because he believes that states have a duty to defend their citizens. Although Kant is not himself a pacifist, one might be able to ground pacifism in Kant s alternative version of the moral law: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” All human being has the autonomy of the will explained as the concept of freedom. If men have freedom of the will then they must be obligated to obey the categorical imperative. Thus whoever has freedom of the will should take responsibility for his behavior, unless he won’t do. And as this can be universalized and applied to men with reason, anyone who violates moral law should be pun-ished to preserve the life in community. This principle of deontological ethical system is extended to the conduct of human being in war.
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Morality Principles to the Ethical Judgment on War
3. Ethical Justification of War
4. Conclusion
5. References
(0)
(0)