Rector’s Reflections
Wednesday 9th October 2024
Christians and the Ethics of War
In yesterday’s reflections, I introduced the idea of ethics based on the concept of Natural Law. A Natural Law approach typically approaches ethical issues in terms of absolute moral values which are held to be universally valid. For example, a Natural Law approach might well proclaim that it is wrong intentionally to kill another human being, whatever the circumstances, on the grounds that this is an absolute moral value which exists regardless of our own particular opinions. This approach has its attractions, but it is not without its difficulties. For example, how do we know that a particular moral value is part of Natural Law? Might it simply be a matter of personal opinion, or a product of social values in a particular culture at a particular time?
Another approach to the ethics of war still thinks in terms of the law, but not in terms of Natural Law. Instead, it focusses on the legal rules set out in international treaties and domestic legislation, and the authoritative statements of lawyers and judges. I shall call this “the law of War”.
For some, the ethics of War is simply the application of the law of War. If an action is permitted or allowed by the law of War, it is morally acceptable. If it is expressly of implicitly prohibited, it is morally unacceptable.
This approach has its advantages. The law of War has evolved over hundreds of years to cover most if not all the situations and issues which are likely to arise in the course of human conflict. The principles are reasonably clear, and generally agreed, although it is not always easy to apply the principles in any given situation. And it reduces the philosophical or theological complexities of academic debate to a simple , black and white question: is the proposed action legal or is it not? If it is legal, it is moral. If it is illegal, it is immoral. And if you are not sure, ask advice from a legal specialist, and go with whatever the legal specialist says. If the legal specialist says it is ok to bomb another country, you are off the hook – you have followed the best legal advice available to you.
One can understand why military commanders and political leaders would find this an attractive approach to the ethics of War. If their action is lawful, according to the Law of War, they need not trouble their conscience any more. Furthermore, if their actions are legal, they need not fear a prosecution for war crimes. They can sleep at night.
But this approach also has its critics. To start with, legal rules are set and enforced by those in power. What happens if the political or judicial authority is corrupt or simply the stooge of an immoral dictatorship? In such situations, the law may well be legally valid while at the same time being morally abhorrent. Why should it be morally acceptable to obey an immoral law?
Secondly, except in the most obvious of cases, there is usually plenty of scope for argument over whether a particular action is – or is not- compatible with the provisions of the Law of War. I believe there is an Italian proverb: “Four Jesuits, five opinions”. Well, I think one could equally say, “Four lawyers, five opinions”. In practice, lawyers can probably justify pretty well anything that a politician or general wants to do. If this is the case, is the Law of War simply a cloak of decency thrown over the nakedness of power?
Finally, there is the distinction between what is “immoral” and what is “amoral”. The world of law is not usually “immoral”, but it is fundamentally “amoral”: it treats law as simply a set of rules which are to be interpreted and applied, regardless of any inherent moral value. The law is the law, and that’s that – you may not like it, but those are the rules. The fact that legal rules can be used to create and perpetuate situations which many people would say are grossly unfair or immoral is irrelevant. The rules are the rules, and they are to be applied regardless of context or consequence. But are we happy to treat the ethics of war as nothing more than the application of a set of rules, as if it were analogous to a game of football or cricket? Or are there deeper questions of right and wrong, of justice and morality? Is the Law of War little more than an attempt to let guilty humans off the hook?
What do you think?