Fotion, Realism, Pacifism, and Just War
Introduction
Realism
The horrors of war have led to the development of four ethical perspectives on war. One prominent perspective is Realism.
Realists acknowledge the destructiveness of war and assess its costs, notably to their own nation.
They often express the notion that "war is hell."
However, realists also consider the potential benefits war may bring, such as territorial gains or resource acquisition.
Key Claims of Strong Realism:
Moral relationships are non-existent between nations during peacetime.
Unlike individuals within a nation, nations do not have moral obligations toward each other.
Moral rules regarding actions such as killing, stealing, or lying cannot be applied to nations in the same way as they apply to individuals.
Therefore, a nation does not need to consider moral reasons when contemplating war with another.
Once a war commences, moral considerations cease to apply.
Warring nations cannot be judged by moral standards regarding conduct during war, including acts such as harming civilians or prisoners.
A perspective articulated by Nicholas J. Spykman emphasizes that all forms of coercion, including destructive wars, are permissible in international relations.
Power dynamics define state behavior, where the struggle for power equates to the struggle for survival.
Strong realists view ethics and war as mutually exclusive; they are nonmoralists.
While capable of differentiating right from wrong, they argue that moral concerns are illogical when nations engage in warfare.
Justifications for the nonmoral stance vary amongst realists:
Many assert the absence of a moral authority to govern nation behavior on the global stage, leading to self-interest as the sole guiding principle.
If a nation invades another to gain resources, the only pertinent consideration is profit, not moral implications.
Perspectives on Self-Interest
Some realists believe that self-interest is not merely a choice but a necessity dictated by existential threats.
They argue that the stakes of war compel nations to prioritize survival over moral deliberation.
This leads to the conclusion that ethical considerations cannot apply if nations cannot act ethically due to their circumstances.
Weak Realism
Weak Realists differ from Strong Realists by not entirely dismissing ethical considerations in international relations.
Scholars like Edward Hallett Carr asserted that while moral values exist, they are not universally applicable.
Hans Morgenthau criticized the absence of an absolute moral perspective but noted that nations should prioritize self-interest over universal ethics in political action.
Weak Realists often express a commitment to a form of self-interest that may acknowledge ethical aspects when assessments do not considerably incur costs.
Comments on Realism
Although Realists do not consciously follow morals, their actions may still align with ethical principles.
Example: Sun Tzu advised treating prisoners well, not from a moral standpoint, but for practical military advantage.
The claim of Realism as a non-moral stance warrants nuanced understanding.
Some realists argue that their responsibilities to their citizens might indirectly align with moral considerations regarding the broader community.
Variability exists within the Realism doctrine regarding justifications for war initiation and conduct of war.
Example of William Tecumseh Sherman asserting the responsibilities of the transgressor in warfare; his perspective treated conduct post-war differently than pre-war positions.
Militarism
Militarism, viewed as a separate ethical response to war’s horrors, is frequently aligned with Realism due to its permissiveness towards war.
Militarism differs as it perceives the benefits of war as outweighing its costs.
War for Militarists serves transformative purposes, instilling virtues such as discipline and responsibility in participants.
Nationally, war fosters unity and shared identity among citizens.
Historical examples include:
Spartan society: Militaristic values significantly influenced social structure after conquering Messenia.
Japan post-World War I developed militarism, influenced by its organizational homogeneity and strong leadership.
Italy faced challenges adopting a militaristic ideology under Mussolini due to conflicting interests among societal groups.
Nazi Germany’s militaristic leanings were reinforced through intense leadership and wartime conditions.
Enmity and Ruthlessness
In Militarism, adversaries are perceived not only in foreign lands but also within domestic contexts where passive opposition diminishes societal cohesion.
Assertive responses to both external and internal opposition are justified as necessary in the broader context of a "crusade" against perceived threats.
Militarists argue that the urgency of their cause necessitates extreme measures without half-measures.
Critical distinctions between Militarism and Realism:
Militarists are more inclined to initiate war, often viewing it as the primary response to conflict, contrasting with Realists' cautious approach.
Militarists maintain a moral framing around the purpose of war, while Realists reject the application of ethics to warfare.
Pacifism
Pacifism asserts that war is fundamentally morally wrong and encourages the rejection of war and violence entirely.
It is broader than immediate opposition to war, viewing war as a historical phenomenon that deserves abolition.
Influenced by historical figures like Erasmus and Kant as well as modern developments in international law and institutions aimed to prevent war (e.g., the League of Nations and the United Nations).
Religious Pacifism:
Primarily rooted in Christianity, exemplified in teachings from the New Testament (e.g., "Blessed are the peacemakers,") and adhered to by sects such as Quakers and Mennonites.
These groups oppose military service based on strict adherence to their beliefs, perceiving secular governments as instruments of violence.
Nonviolent Resistance:
Promoted by figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., advocating for dialogue and moral resistance without physical force.
Robert Holmes accentuates the need for understanding and dialogue as a means to prevent war, highlighting that ignorance often breeds conflict.
He identifies himself as a conditional pacifist, recognizing that armed conflict may be justifiable only following extreme efforts for peaceful resolution.
Civilian-based Defense
Civilian-based defense (CBD) is a strategy rooted in nonviolent principles that focuses on societal means of resisting aggression, operating alongside or instead of military engagements.
It relies on public determination to withdraw cooperation from oppressive regimes and engage in organized resistance techniques, promoting substantial social and moral commitment from citizens.
Various factors influence the success of CBD, including collective willingness to resist, ability to organize nonviolent actions, and the nature of aggressor intentions.
Just War Theory
Situated between Pacifism and Realism, Just War Theory acknowledges that while war can be morally justified, it also posits ethical constraints.
It argues for moral evaluation based on criteria for initiating (jus ad bellum) and conducting war (jus in bello).
Core Principles of Just War Theory:
Just Cause: Nations must have valid reasons for war. Examples include aggression against a nation or humanitarian interventions.
Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted authorities can declare war. This includes state leaders and recognized bodies like the UN Security Council.
Good Intentions: The intent behind waging war should align with just causes.
Likelihood of Success: A consistent chance of achieving legitimate goals through military intervention is necessary.
Proportionality: Anticipated harms of war should not outweigh the intended benefits.
Last Resort: War should be considered only after all diplomatic options have been exhausted.
Discussion on Terminology
Justice
Justice in the context of warfare requires fair treatment among nations and respect for their sovereignty and citizens.
Definition of War
Modern definitions of war lack clarity, often blending instances of interstate conflict with internal or civil wars & lacking legal recognition of belligerent actors, complicating justice implications.
Application of Just War Theory
Core principles of Just War Theory provide moral frameworks for evaluating armed conflicts and can help clarify strategic and ethical considerations impacting international relations.