War, Terrorism, and Torture- The Central Moral Questiono When, if ever, is it morally permissible to commit the sorts of actions necessary in war that in any other context we would consider heinous, unconscionable, and morally reprehensible? Pacifists claim that nothing can justify such actions in war Therefore, wars themselves are never- Lackley: “Pacifism”o 1. Overview Lackley defends anti-war pacifism- Anti-killing pacifism: killing is always wrong (of humans or any animal)- Anti-war pacifism: personal violence can be justified, butpolitical violence is always wrongo 1. Anti-killing Pacifism Possible justification1. Right to life- Every human has a right to life that can never be violatedo Problems1. Having a right implies the power to secure it, including defending against others2. At a minimum, the right to life guarantees thepower to kill in self-defense3. Therefore, this justification failso 2. Can soldiers kill soldiers? The right of a soldier to kill in a war is often derived from a right of self-defense- Limits on self-defense justifications1. There is no other way to save your life2. You did nothing to provoke the attack- Problems for self-defense justifications1. There is always another way to save your life: surrender- Is that plausible?2. Not every soldier can claim they did not provoke theattack3. Most killings do not occur in kill-or-be-killed situationso 3. Can soldiers kill citizens? Citizens are always killed in war. What could justify their deaths?- Assumption of risko By staying in a war zone they assume the risks of death Problems- Assumption of risk does not justify the person who kills them- Do citizens always assume risk?o 4. Conclusion Anti-killing pacifism is too strong because everyone has the right to kill in self-defense The right to self-defense does not justify killing in war There are no other plausible justifications for killing in war Therefore, killing in war is not justified (anti-war pacifism)- Narveson: “Pacifism: A philosophical analysis”o 1. Pacifism is self-contradictory1. Having a right entails having a right to exercise the power to secure it2. Sometimes force is the necessary power to secure a right3. Pacifism maintains that we have a right not to have violence done to us4. Pacifism claims we do not have the right to use force to secure thatright5. Therefore, pacifism is self contradictoryo 2. Questions Do all wars provide for the public defense? Are wars that do not justified? Does Narveson’s arguments show that Lackey is wrong?- Walzer, “The Legalist Paradigm”o 1. The Domestic Analogy States, like people, have the right of self-defense Armies are the state’s organs of self-defense Soldiers are justified in killing because of the state’s right of self-defense Two implications1. A state is justified in going to war after aggression has begun2. Only one side of an armed conflict can be justifiedo 2. Just War Theory Killing in war is justified only if two conditions are met1. The state is justified in going to war- Jus ad bellum (justice in going to war)2. The war is prosecuted justly- Jus in bello (justice in war) Jus ad bellum1. Just cause- A state can only wage war if its cause is just- Self defense- Retribution- Preemption- Preventive? (Bush Doctrine)2. Right Intention- A state must intend to fight the war solely for the just cause, not as a pretext for some other end3. Proper Authority Declaration- The war must be decided upon and publicly declared bythe proper authority4. Last Resort- All diplomatic measures for peaceful resolution have been tried and failed5. Probability of Success- The must be a good chance that the war will achieve its aim6. Proportionality- The good to be achieved outweighs the evil to be doneo A state is justified in going to war only if all six criteria of jus ad bellum are satisfiedo An action in war is justified only if the war is (1) justified and (2) all four criteria of jus in bello aresatisfied as well Jus in bello1. Obey all international weapon bans- No chemical or biological weapons2. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity- Soldiers way only use weapons against those who can harm them- civilians cannot be intentionally targeted- Can collateral damage be justified Doctrine of double effect- Distinguishes between intended harms, and merely foreseen harmso Four Conditions1. The action is otherwise permissible2. Only the good is intended, not the harm that will result3. The harm is not a means to achieve the end4. The good brought about is proportionally greater than the harmo 3. Proportionality Only the level of force necessary to achieve a military objective may be used, no moreo 4. No means mala in se (evil in themselves) Actions that are bad in themselves (for which there is no justification) cannot be used, e.g. rapeo 5. Questions How committed are we really to the just war theory?- Yoder, “When War is Unjust”o 1. Do we take Just War seriously?1. Right Intention- A state has a right intention in going to war only if:o It recognizes that there are severe moral limits on the use of force in war; ando It recognizes that following these limits may mean losing the war- Why?o We take a moral requirement seriously just in case we are willing to abide by its requirements when it is hard to do so2. Last Resort- A state uses was a last resort only if:o It is disposed to use diplomatic means of resolution first; ando It invests heavily in developing diplomatic means- Fiscal Year 2009 Fundingo Defense: $585 billiono State: $400 million3. Proportionality- A war is proportional only if a state:o Articulates credible standards for weighing evils and benefits; ando It reasonably considers all evils and benefits, not just itsown- For most states, the only question is whether it can win, and at a reasonable cost to itself - Therefore, most states do not really subscribe to Just War Theory- What they really subscribe to is realismo 2. Realism- Morality does not apply to waro The only consideration is the state’s interesto Whatever actions are necessary in war are permissible because they are necessary “The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war” – John Lyly- Argument from necessityo Distinction from moral responsibility Excusing conditions: factors that justify an otherwise wrong action (e.g. ignorance) Exempting condition: factors that remove and action from moral appraisal (e.g. mental