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

forcewhich 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
Gods ethic and the ethic considered acceptable to humans that the
believerteeters 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
The
The
The

act must be a legitimate act of war,

direct effect of the war must be morally acceptable,
intention of the actor must be good,
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.