Jus in bello: What are the restrictions on the ways in which war can be fought? Just war theory 3 parts: -Jus ad bellum: What are the circumstances in which the decision to resort to war is justified? Notice also that governments will often use arguments without regard to principle when it comes to justifying war. merely using the language of justice doesn't seem to do much to stop people from fighting. "descriptive" claim below - that states never act other than to pursue their self-interest - then it may seem that it's simply pointless to criticise the activities of states on ethical grounds. Nor is there anyone who can punish wrongdoers.Ĭonsequently arguments about ethics are pointless to the point of being nonsense. Some benefit for the state? Will Australia be stronger or weaker if it fights this war? What is theĬhance we will win the war? What will happen if we don't? Why should'nt morality apply to the actions of states? -if ethics, like law, rely on the existence of a final court of appeal to resolves ethical arguments then the absence of an effective international court means there are no answers to ethical questions. instead realists are concerned with questions such as: Is this war necessary to achieve Category Error- Realism: -it makes no sense to discuss morality or ethics in relation to war. A prescriptive claim: We should not use ethical concepts to evaluate or guide the affairs of states in the international arena. A descriptive claim: Ethical concepts in fact play no role in determining the actions of states in the international arena. Types of realism: -A philosophical claim: Arguments about ethics in international relations involve a category error. *This is purely in the international arena, realist do not deny the use of ethics to evaluate everyday crimes. A first approximation might be "that moral language has no Realism Definition: Orend makes it abundantly clear, the precise nature of the Realist claim about ethics is (Notice, however, that any plausible moral theory pays attention to the difference between my actions and the actions of other people and entails that I should be especially concerned with my own actions - not least because my actions are the only actions I can reliably control. Pacifism seems to prefer that we should stand by while other people kill and be killed, rather than kill anyone ourselves. Finally, it is sometimes suggested that pacifists are guilty of a "moral squeamishness". Without the threat of violence there is nothing to stop malicious people from doing whatever they like. Pacifism has also seemed to many, including Elizabeth Anscombe, to provide a "green light" for evildoers. So it is not wrong to kill in self-defence or the defence of others, as no right is violated in this case. If a person is responsible for forcing a choice between people's rights to life, their own right lapses. The deontological intervention is not against killing per se, but against violating an individual's right to life. Consequentialists may even argue that personal pacifism is self-contradictory: if human life is so valuable that I'm not justified in taking it, even when mine is threatened, then surely I ought to prevent others from being killed? -Similarly, Kantians and other deontologists may argue that pacifists are mistaken about the nature of the deontological injunction against killing. Social order is a condition of social life, and order, she argues, can only be maintained through the threat of force and (occasionally) the use of force. Religious Reasons: In her essay "War and Murder", Elizabeth Anscombe argues that a benevolent God would not have willed opposition to an institution that is essential to society.
0 kommentar(er)
