Rector’s Reflections
Thursday 10th October 2024
Christians and the Ethics of War
In the last two reflections, we have looked at two ways of looking at the ethics of war, both of which are based on the idea of applying a set of rules : either a set of rules which are said to be universally valid, in all cultures and at all times (“Natural Law”), or a set of authoritative rules worked out by human beings (“the Law of War”). But there are other ways of approaching ethical issues, which do not involve applying a set of rules.
One of these approaches is called Consequentialism. Consequentialism looks at whether an action is right or wrong in terms of the consequences which flow from the action in question. If the action leads to a good result, the action can be considered to be a good action. If it leads to a bad result, it can be considered to be a bad action. Consequentialism is in essence the sort of approach which argues that “the ends justifies the means”.
The phrase “Consequentialism” has become popular over the last 50 years or so. It can be taken as including within it the ethical theory known as “Utilitarianism”, which developed in England in the 1st half of 19th century. Utilitarianism tends to looks at the consequences of an action in terms of “pleasure” or “happiness”, and seeks to favour the action which will lead to the greatest amount of “pleasure” or “happiness” to the greatest number of people. I have placed inverted commas around the word “pleasure” and the word “happiness” because much depends on these words are defined.
A Consequentialist approach to the ethics of war might look at a proposed action, and ask the following question: if we were to do this, is it likely to lead to a good outcome? If the answer is yes, it can be considered to be a good thing to do. If there are a choice of options available, including the option of doing nothing, the option to be chosen is the option which is likely to lead to the best outcome. Ends justify means.
Consequentialist approaches come with their problems. To begin with, they are based on the idea that it possible to predict the result of a particular action, and to measure that result with reasonable accuracy. Both ideas can be challenged. It is very hard to predict the result of an action, especially if we take the longer view. Take, for example, the defeat of Imperial Germany in 1918. Many books could be written on the consequences of German’s defat in 1918. Every action we take has its unintended consequences. And, in any event , how do we measure the consequences of an action? For example, how might one measure damage to the civilian infrastructure of a country, and the suffering to innocent civilians? How does one take in to account the impact of trauma and destruction on subsequent generations?
Secondly, Consequentialism is all about the best way of achieving a desired result. It does not raise the question of whether the result is something which is in itself morally acceptable. For example, a country might seek the destruction of a neighbouring country. It decides to do so by launching a pre-emptive attack using overwhelming force. A Consequentialist approach would ask: is the proposed pre-emptive attack likely to achieve the desired result, namely the destruction of your neighbour? If so, it is morally acceptable. It doesn’t seek to ask the more fundamental question, which is whether it is morally acceptable for countries to go about destroying each other.
Finally, Consequentialism tends to look at the ethics of a situation from one point of view only, typically the viewpoint of the party seeking to use violence against another party. In doing so, it can privilege the viewpoint of the aggressor. But what about the viewpoints of those who will suffer as a result of the decision taken?
Furthermore, some would argue that in the modern globalised world, the views of the wider world community should be taken into account as well. This is, after all, why we have the United Nations. So the question is not: does a proposed military action achieve the result which is being sought by a particular country or government? But rather, does a proposed military action achieve a result which is at least acceptable to the world community as a whole?
In short, there is a real danger that Consequentialism is simply a smooth synonym for the doctrine that “Might is Right”. I wonder if you would agree?