The ethics
of war is always a contentious idea. Many would find it difficult to admit that
they endorse the killing of another human being, but at the same time are
driven to support their country in an armed conflict. It seems that in war,
normal considerations of ethics and respect for other’s well being go
completely out the window. That something as perverse as mass killing can be
romanticized as mentioned in the reading is testament to the idea that war is
something far outside our rational realm of thinking.
This week I
tended to find myself agreeing more with the absolutist notions-for example, I
find justifying the use of the nuclear bomb very difficult in my book. However,
I grew up in a military family and it would be a while before I could denounce
certain things; I’ve had the idea ‘war is war’ drilled into my head. Yet I
cannot subscribe to the notion that war is inevitable. War is a worst case
scenario. Humans are often prone to fighting amongst one another, but they
evolve. Just like humans have evolved away from slavery and are moving away
from capital punishment, norms can-and have been developing- that are moving
the human race away from violent conflict. To posit that humans are naturally
inclined to war and are unable to reject this instinct is a cop out and
discredits man as a rational being capable of social and cultural evolution.
Side note:
In this week’s Economist there was an article about the morality of robots. As
military use of robots rises and they become more complex, engineers are going
to have to start making ethical decisions. Will an automated drone strike a
building if there are 20 soldiers and 30 civilians? In my opinion, something
interesting to think about as technology progresses.
I agree with your statement that morals and ethics appear to be non-existent in war. I like the point you made about humans evolving throughout history to rid society of unethical practices. The mentality in society now right now seems to lean towards the idea that any action is acceptable, regardless of how unethical it is, as long as it is for the war effort. But with proper measures, this mentality can shift towards truly using war as a last resort, rather than using war as revenge or to prove one’s international power. I don’t believe this shift in mentality will occur anytime soon, and only time and gradual cultural reform can bring rationality and morality to war. The question you pose at the end of your paper is very interesting. Technology constantly changes the dynamics of warfare, in this case however robots are machines and have no sense of right and wrong unless programmed to. Hopefully since technology has more accuracy on targeting objects, these robots will be able to harm fewer civilians.
ReplyDeleteI like you grew up in a military family and mostly likely because of that i tend to lean toward the a utilitarianism view point; but not to the degree as you stated of using a nuclear bomb. I think an important thing for me in the utilitarianism view is the concept of sacrificing a few to save the majority, not killing massive amounts of people in order to justify an end; i feel that it is necessary that we make the difference between the two. You bring up a very good point, in that engineers that make weapons such as drones are going to have to start making ethical decisions. Im interested to see how this topic continues to develop as technology continues to develop
ReplyDeleteVery interesting question here at the end. This would make a very interesting paper for someone or someones to do.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that "war is something far outside our realm of thinking". Can we attempt to restrict something that is so beyond us? What is the point of creating guidelines for war when they are always broken? Even when it comes down to the moral calculus, we can never truly justify the killing of 10 people to their families or relatives, even if that option is the lesser of two evils. However, I do not know that I agree with your point that human beings will evolve away from violent conflict- I think conflict is an inherent characteristic of mankind. I can only foresee the nature of conflict changing, but not the amount or the presence of conflict. Perhaps the chances of another world war are slim, but civil wars continually erupt and last for years, sometimes even decades. For this reason, I find the prospects for a world devoid of violent conflict very unlikely.
ReplyDelete