I think it might be time to talk about Just War Theory. Just War Theory is a rather difficult specialization of ethics that has been debated in Western Civilization since the Greeks, so please don't jump on me too badly for posting a condense version on an internet bulletin board. Further, trying to define the theory as a whole is trying to define any other field of philosophy: it is open to argument (and Wittgenstien would say its pointless, but that's another story all together).
For my rather practical purposes (as a military officer with a degree in philosophy) Just War Theory is something of a moral contract with my government, and agreement saying that I will take actions directly or indirectly to kill other human beings when in war. In the Western scheme of morality, killing another human being is an evil act, whether you base it on the principle of thou shalt not kill (more accurately though, thou shalt not murder, but I'll talk more about this in a line or two), or the fact that the act of killing another human being denies him or her every one of his civil rights (life, liberty, and property). However, in our society, we have also come up with schema on killing, methods of justify the act so that it is not murder. (This is not a relativism arguement, saying that we create our own morality, rather both agnostic and religious philosophers will generally agree that killing in a just war is not murder). While many strict moralist will say that killing is always "evil" (for lack of a better word), most will agree that if killing justified by certain principles, then the killer himself is not evil.
The idea is that the simple committing of an evil action does not make a person evil. Evil can be defined as the quality of being morally corrupt. Therefore, an evil action is an act that is morally corrupt, and an evil person is morally corrupt. To use the syllogism "Killing is evil (killing has the evil quality), Ed killed, ergo Ed is evil (Ed has the evil quality)" is a lingustic fallacy, similar to saying "Typing requires ten fingers, Ed typed, ergo Ed is ten fingers," or "Running is fast, Ed ran, ergo Ed is fast." Performing an action does not cause the actor to take upon the quality of his actions.
Instead, we must examine the actor to find signs of moral corruption. In this case, whether the act of killing is evil or not is irrelevant: what matters is the actor. For example, most can agree that a policeman who kills to protect the innocent is not evil, even though the person he killed will never laugh again, will not be able to feed his children or take care of her ailing mother, or any one of the qualities that make the act of taking a person's life evil. In a utilitarian arguement, the policeman prevented that person from committing even more evil, so that act was justified (of course, he also prevented that person from doing more good, but that is part of the problem with utilitarianism). Likewise, while the act of signing your name is not inherently evil, that is the method through which a tyrant condemns a man to death. Would we argue that your average german soldier was more evil than Hitler? (Some might, but most would agree that no, as Hitler was the leader of Nazism, he was most responsible). The question becomes does a person act in a moral manner.
To determine this, we have developed Just War Theory. The one I am about to describe is codified by the Geneva Conventions, although every culture has their own schema of just war (Jihad can be looked at as a Just War Theory, as well as Bushido). The purpose of Just War theory is clarify as best we can (philosophy can be a clumsy tool) when we are justified in using lethal force. If you say "self-defense is justified" do you have to wait until you are invaded, or can you strike preemptively? Does it have to be a police officer protecting the innocent, or can it be a vigillante? If I am attacked by my hated foe, can I kill him in malice because he attacked first? These are some of the questions that Just War approaches.
The first part of the theory is Jus Ad Bellum: conditions necessary for me to go to war. In order for your violence to be justified, you should meet the following principles:
- Just Cause: You must have a good reason for going to war. Self-Defense is one that most people on this board have been throwing out, but some might argue that certain resources are important enough to go to war. Other reasons include moral obligation (the justification in the Balkans), or national honor (difficult to use in modern times)
- Legitimate Authority: You must be empowered in your society to make the decision to go to war. For example, an American militia can't just sail over to a Pacific island and take it over in Just War Theory (ask Hawaiians, its been done). The President is the only man in the U.S. who can order Americans to go to war, further, he can only order the military (though Congress can draft civillians). On a more personal level, the vigillante is wrong because he has not been empowered by society to protect and serve (The next time you want to defend vigillantism, think about your neighbor writing you a parking ticket, and ask where you would draw the line).
- Possessing the Right Intention: You can't go to war just because you want to and happen to have Just Cause... you must go to war because of that Just Cause. For example, the allegations that the war is Iraq is motivated to boost approval ratings before the next election are serious because, if true, the war is not justified regardless of the good we do (i.e. we would not be at war to depose a tyrant and free a country, but help one man remain President. Also a disclaimer: this is an example, I do not believe this to be true).
- Reasonable Chance of Success: It must be possible that my resistance can succeed. This is very difficult to assert in this day in age, because many small powers (Vietnam against the U.S., Afghanistan against the U.S.S.R) have managed to defeat vastly superior foes. A better example would be to look at Lee's choice to surrender to Grant, or the Japanese surrender to the U.S.: the forces could still fight, but they could no longer win.
- Proportionality: You must do more good than harm. For example, the "No Blood for Oil" argument of the first Gulf War is a proportionality argument: although Iraq was unjustly controlling Kuwait's oil supply, freeing it would not be worth the bloodshed it required (again, not advocating a political stance, just placing it in the theory). Under these conditions, any Just Cause can be negated. For example, if my death would save the lives of ten people, it can be argued that I would be evil to defend myself from death.
-Last Resort: Some people do not include this in Jus ad Bellum, some include it in the other principles, I'm listing it here for the sake of completeness. War must be a last resort: one must be reluctant to go to war. All other practical avenues must be exhausted. Jus ad Bellum is not a checklist that one can mark off, grab their rifle and start shooting. At best, killing itself is a necessary evil, and you cannot be justified unless its necessary.
The other part of Just War theory is Jus in Bello, or how to conduct yourself while at war (how you may morally kill). These binds the President, the General, the Lieutenent and Sergeant, all the way down to Private. Even if I am justified in going to war, my killing is not justified if I don't hold to two principles:
- Discrimination: Just War does not mean go out and kill every one of your enemies, you must discriminate in your violence. Under the Geneva conventions, it includes all non-combatants, historically, it meant women and children (as well as not necessarily burning cities to the ground). Further, you can only kill who it is necessary to kill, not whom it is convenient. To use a classic D&D example, a strict interpretation of discrimination, you could not kill every orc baby because they'll grow up to kill you, as they pose no threat to your or your success in war. (The "they'll grow up to be evil" argument doesn't cut it in Just War because you have years to prevent them from growing old enough to kill, ergo it is probably not the last resort, only the most convenient option). Discrimination is probably the hardest part of modern war, and I personally would have a hard time holding a man responsible for shooting non-combatants to save their own life (as in Blackhawk Down).
- Proportionality: The ends must still justify the means (to turn that expression back on itself). This applies not only to myself (You cannot shoot a combatant that no longer has the means to resist or escape, nor cannot use lethal force on one who does not have the means to use lethal force), but also to the goverment (for example, we don't use nuclear weapons in Iraq because that would be wrong). It is probably the most difficult to explain (and overlaps with Jus Ad Bellum), but personally I think Aristotle had the best idea: "act virtuously." It is a soldiers job to minimize his opponent's suffering, even while trying to kill him.
Now, many don't like Just War Theory, feeling morality has no place in war, or that anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty. (That would be the amoral and utiltiarian views of war, by the way). However, Just War Theory would be considered "classical" in the sense that it stems from ancient and medieval thought and Western moral concepts. Its the closest your going to get to the "Saturday Morning Cartoon" morality that most Americans were raised on If you think about it, this is how He-Man fought Skeletor: he was defending Eternia (Just Cause), empowered to do so because he was the Prince and appointed by Grayskull (Legitimate Authority), he always fought for his friends and country, never for personal gain or glory (Right Intentions), always won (ergo always had a Reasonable Chance of Success), and never did any harm at all (Proportionality). He only beat on Skeletor and his minions (Discrimination) and never killed anyone (Proportionality). GI Joe and Transformers were the same way.
Anyway, just a few thoughts
