Ethics of War and Violence
The ethics of war and violence examines the moral evaluation of armed conflict and political violence, including when, if ever, war is justified and how it may permissibly be fought.
Definition
The branch of applied and political ethics concerned with the morality of war, armed force, and political violence.
Scope
This area covers the just-war tradition (criteria for justified resort to war and for just conduct within it), pacifist and nonviolent rejections of war, and the ethics of political violence and terrorism. It addresses foundational distinctions such as combatant and non-combatant, the moral equality of combatants, and the relation between law and morality in armed conflict. As a reference subject it surveys these frameworks and debates without endorsing or condemning particular conflicts or actors.
Sub-topics
Core questions
- Can resorting to war ever be morally justified, and under what conditions?
- What moral constraints govern the conduct of those who fight?
- Is violence ever a legitimate means of political change, or should it be wholly rejected?
- How should non-combatants be protected, and why?
Key theories
- Just war theory
- A tradition distinguishing the justice of going to war (jus ad bellum) from just conduct in war (jus in bello), with criteria such as just cause, proportionality, and discrimination between combatants and non-combatants.
- Revisionist just war theory
- Jeff McMahan challenges the traditional 'moral equality of combatants', arguing that whether killing in war is permissible depends on the justice of the cause, not merely on conformity to in bello rules.
History
Reflection on the morality of war runs from Augustine and Aquinas through early modern theorists such as Grotius. Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977) revived secular just-war theory for contemporary debate, and 'revisionist' work by McMahan and others reopened foundational questions in the 2000s.
Debates
- The moral equality of combatants
- Traditional theory, as defended by Walzer, holds that soldiers on both sides fight with equal moral standing under the in bello rules, while revisionists like McMahan deny this, tying individual permissibility to the justice of the cause.
Key figures
- Michael Walzer
- Jeff McMahan
- G. E. M. Anscombe
- Augustine of Hippo
Related topics
Seminal works
- walzer1977
- mcmahan2009
Frequently asked questions
- What is the difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello?
- Jus ad bellum concerns the justice of resorting to war (for example, just cause and last resort), while jus in bello concerns just conduct during war (such as discrimination and proportionality).
- Does just war theory justify war?
- It provides criteria for evaluating whether a war and its conduct are just; it can be used to condemn as well as to permit, and as presented here it describes the framework rather than endorsing any war.