War and civil disobedience are two major concepts that have a bearing on the foundation of ethics. Generally, ethics refers to the moral principles that govern people’s behavior. Even though war and civil disobedience are always associated with death and damage of property, the two acts can also be ethically justifiable. Drawing inspirations from the ‘just war theory’, there could be ethical reasons to engage in war, but the whole process may be violated by the immoral means used to make concerns known. Justice in the enacted laws, pacifism and legitimacy of authority are some of the ethical concepts that are associated with war and civil disobedience.
The ‘just war theory’ refers to the ethical view of violence that has its origins in the Christian philosophy of St. Augustine (Johnson, 2014). The theory was basally formulated to reconcile the three basic concepts of humanity. The horrible act of taking away human life is perceived wrong. With this knowledge, the state has the mandate to defend its citizens and justice. However, this process may at times require force and violence for its attainment. The just war theory not only provides a legitimate purpose for war but also helps to establish proper guidelines on how it is fought.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
War and civil disobedience can be considered ethically right if they are conducted after the previous peaceful efforts have failed. However, it is morally right if a legitimate authority or government is the one leading the resistance. Even though war and civil obedience have been despised because they violate the rule of law, there are some instances that the act can be perceived to promote self-defence. According to Johnson (2014), if the resistance to a given rule is conducted to correct the inflicted pain on humanity, then the reasons behind violence are justifiable. This concept has been supported by the UN charter where citizens are granted a right to defend themselves from injustices and other external adversaries (Johnson, 2014). Although the propositions of this theory are justifiable, there are other reasons for war that are contentious. Humanitarian intervention has been singled out as one of the controversial concepts in war. Even though the motives may seem ethically justifiable, failure to cushion innocent victims from danger renders it controversial. Inspirations can be drawn from the Rwandan genocide of 1999 where violence on innocent civilians was left to take its course without proper intervention (Holland & Aaronson, 2014).
In contrast, pacifism is an ethical concept that renders civil disobedience and war unjustifiable by prioritizing peaceful negotiations. Traditionally, war and violence were considered evil in the society. One major genuine pacifist movement in the history was conducted by Buddhists in the third century (Johnson, 2014). Due to the demands of their religion to abstain from any form of violence, King Ashoka of India was compelled by the followers of Buddha to renounce war (Holland & Aaronson, 2014). War and civil disobedience are considered the key enemies of peace. Since tranquillity is a justifiable cause of prosperity and development, it is unethical to seek justice through force.
The 2003 Iraq war is one case study that demonstrates how the reasons of war supersede ethical issues. Even though Bush and Blair purported that they had the right intentions to wage war in Iraq, their methods violated the key guidelines of ethics. The use of drone strikes contradicted the proportionality principles stipulated in the just war theory (Coady, Dobos & Sanyal, 2018). Protection of human life cannot be achieved by killing innocent civilians on the other end. Although the threat posed by Iraq was huge, the act of the US government to fight with civilians rather than the armed bandits in villages was ill-advised and violated the ethical considerations of a fair war. However, as stipulated by the Christian philosophy, a just war is executed by a legitimate authority. In recent times, determining the legitimacy of an authority may seem problematic. Even the most legitimate groups have been labelled terrorists which jeopardizes the ethical stipulations of war and civil disobedience. For instance, the ousting of Gaddafi’s era and other Arab springs in 2011 was controversially executed since the lives of numerous civilians were sacrificed to end the perceived unconstitutional groups (Holland & Aaronson, 2014). With the ever-changing world, ethical principles have lagged in their pursuit to restore morality in the society.
References
Coady, C. A. J., Dobos, N., & Sanyal, S. (Eds.). (2018). Challenges for Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical Demand and Political Reality . Oxford University Press.
Holland, J., & Aaronson, M. (2014). Dominance through coercion: Strategic rhetorical balancing and the tactics of justification in Afghanistan and Libya. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding , 8 (1), 1-20.
Johnson, J. T. (2014). Just war tradition and the restraint of war: A moral and historical inquiry (Vol. 644). Princeton University Press.
