Morality in Warfare

Coby W. Dillard

Norfolk State University

Modern nations have developed a set of both written and unspoken rules governing the

conduct of belligerent nations engaged in warfare. Known as the law of war, this code of

conduct is partially designed to protect noncombatants in a conflict as much as possible,

thereby adding a moral responsibility to nations in conflict with each other.

Warfare is an example of struggle at its most basic level, “an act of force…which must, in

theory, lead to extremes” (Clausewitz, 2006, p. 27). While “nothing is wrong with being fueled

by the prospect of victory” (Arroyo, 2013, p. 35), the desire to win at any cost leads many

leaders to believe than any actions taken to achieve victory, regardless of their level of violence,

are justified as long as the aim of victory is achieved. The ethnic cleansing committed by

belligerents during the Bosnian war of 1992-95 presents an example of the excesses of military

operations during warfare.

The destruction of modern warfare can lead an religious individual to the point of a

teleological impasse, which Arroyo (2013, p. 127) defines as “the point at which a sincere

believer sees so many contradictions between God’s ethic and the ethic considered acceptable

to humans that the believer…teeters on the brink of a wholesale faith crisis because of a

shattered image of God.” Scenes of mass destruction can lead an individual of any faith-or none

at all-to question how a supreme being could allow so many people to be killed as a result of a

disagreement between two entities. “Central to the teleological impasse,” Arroyo writes, “is the

question, ‘Why does evil and suffering visit innocent people?’ (2013, p. 127)”

The laws of warfare seek to prevent the devolution of armed conflict into mass murder

or genocide, while still allowing for the execution of missions of military necessity.

Discrimination in warfare-a principle that requires that “one must not make noncombatants the

object of attack as one makes combatants” (Finnis, 1996, p. 25)-forces a distinction between

those directly involved in belligerent acts from those who seek to simply carry out their lives.

Noncombatants “may not be directly harmed or killed” (Finnis, 1996, p. 25), but military actions

can be taken that results in their death as an after effect.

Michael Walzer, in Just and Unjust Wars (2000, p. 153), lists four conditions where

performing an “act likely to have evil consequences-the killing of noncombatants” may be

permitted:

The act must be a legitimate act of war,

The direct effect of the war must be morally acceptable,

The intention of the actor must be good,

The good effect must be “substantially good” to compensate for the evil effects that

result from it.

Warfare is an example of man at his most primitive, and its resultant suffering can make

difficult the reconciliation of the image of a caring God with the death and destruction it leaves

in its wake. The laws of warfare place a morality into its conduct, forcing actors at all levels to

view their strategies and tactic through a prism that seeks to limit human suffering.

References:

Arroyo, A. (2013). Seeds of Maturity. In A. Arroyo (Ed.), Ideas and Their Influences (pp. 1-48).

Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.

Arroyo, A. (2013). The Teological Impasse: When God Ceases to be a Viable Ethical Exemplar. In

A. Arroyo (Ed.), Ideas and Their Influences (pp. 125-143). Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.

Clausewitz, C. v. (2006). On War. (M. H. Paret, Trans.) New York: Oxford University Press.

Finnis, J. (1996). The Ethics of War and Peace in the Catholic Natural Law Tradition. In T. Nardin,

The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives (pp. 15-40). Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Walzer, M. (2000). Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books.