The Ethic of War According to the Utilitarianism Theory
The ethical problem that this paper explore is war; within the concept of the just war theory expressed in an online article “The Ethics of War”, retrieved from www.bbc.uk/religion/ethics/war/jwintro.shtml . Only the introduction will be used as a reference for the paper. This issue is current, since the U.S military forces are involved in a war in Iraq ; however, this paper will not deal directly with that situation, but instead focus on the ethical perspective from the act utilitarianism theory. The conclusion may bring forth the opinion that the Iraq war is just or unjust, depending on the condition of the theory of the just war to be incorporated or not in the act utilitarianism theory; either opinion is a mere circumstance.
The introduction defines the concept of the just war as an attempt to reconcile some Christian principle. The problem of taking lives does not fit the principle of not killing another human life, so reasons were needed to do war. The theory is design as to be a framework of references for an individual or state in the evaluation of the possibility of war. The theory has two elements, first it defines the condition under which warfare is acceptable. Second, it specifies the appropriate conduct during warfare. This paper will explore the concept of the just war through the eyes of an act utilitarianism theory follower.
Act utilitarianism was introduced by Jeremy Bentham. The basic view is that what is right is which produces the greatest good and least evil. Jeremy Bentham believed that only pleasure is valuable in itself, and that all actions should lead to pleasure. The theory is not based on rules, however, Bentham developed, the hedonic calculus, a system of evaluation for deciding which action will produce the most good. It is through that system that the evaluations of a just war will proceed. The first element is the intensity of the good produce by a just war.
How strong of a pleasure will be produce by a just war. First, a question must be asked, is there any pleasure produced by war? According to St Augustine , peace will be one, he wrote: “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” However, a state should only go to war if it has a reasonable chance of winning and bringing peace, if not the war is unethical. So, we must assume that the war is just. Therefore, if peace is the produced pleasure, we could say that the intensity is strong. Peace includes many pleasures, it ease social and economic relations. Furthermore, if the war is conducted according to the just war principle, civilians casualties are minimized, and the least damage to civilian’s infrastructures are caused. Consequently, a just war will produce more pleasure than evil.
We must now evaluate the duration of the pleasure. Since, one goes to war when there is a good chance of success; and it is common knowledge that war is a great evil, and that it is wrong to cause suffering, pain, and death especially with no chance of success, then it must be assume that the just war is waged only when it fulfill that criterion. Then peace will have some duration, however, the war must be won swiftly.
Next, how certain are we that pleasure will be produced if we wage a just war? Since, we agreed that the war was waged in accordance with the rules expressed in the just war theory; such as: that the war must be justified, and have moral weight, and it is “to put right a wrong”. Then it can be assumed that pleasure will ensue when peace will be restored. Nevertheless, we need to evaluate to when that pleasure will occur.
Even as we assumed that it is a just war, and the intent is to defeat the enemy swiftly; it is unknown how long this would take. Consequently, we can not state to when the pleasure will occur. When a state fights a just war, it is restricted in the might it could use to terminate the war. During WWII for example the U.S used nuclear weapons on two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki , killing many civilians, and by such would not be considered a just act within a jut war. It was justified as a speedy end to the war. Accordingly, a just war may have difficulty in winning a quick war.
The next step is to see whether it will lead to more pleasure, the fecundity of peace. One could easily agree that peace has many pleasures, and as a result, would be desired by the many. Thus, it can be said that peace will fecund pleasure. In the same instance, we could agree that it would be of the same type. Meaning that the pleasures produced by a state of peace will have some peaceful characteristics within them, they will ease social and economic relations, and permit coexistence. Hence, we could conclude that it will have the same purity. The last step in our evaluation is to weigh up the number of persons affected by the just war.
A war of any kind affects the whole population of the country at war; for that reason, peace will affect them all. Even, the enemy combatants would gain from peace. They will be no more killing, and daily routine would resume. Moreover, when a war is just and both parties respect the rule of engagement, then both side benefits from such a behavior. Then, it can be concluded that more people would be affected positively than negatively.
It seems that according to the act utilitarianism theory, a just war would be a right action, since it fulfills most of the criterions. The only criterion left uncertain, is on the propinquity of the pleasure. However, this concept only relates to a just war and not to wars in general. Then, and only then can it be considered a good action by the act utilitarianism.