Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

20
Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014

Transcript of Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

Page 1: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

Dr. Steve HaysBKHS

Leadership and EthicsSpring 2014

Page 2: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

Three principal areas:•The just conditions for entering into a war.•When is it just to go to war?

•The just conditions for conducting a war.•What are we permitted to do in carrying out a war and what is forbidden as unjust?

•The just conditions of peace.•What are the conditions of peace that insure the just conclusion of a war?

2

Page 3: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•This presentation is based on the excellent article by Brian D. Orend, "War ,“ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

3

Page 4: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

Just cause Right intention Proper authority and public declaration Last resort Probability of success Proportionality

4

Page 5: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

Protection from external attack is the first and foremost—and in the eyes of some, the only--just cause of war; based on the right of self-defense.

Some have maintained the humanitarian intervention is also justified, where we go to war to save the lives of innocent people who are being attacked by an aggressor.

5

Page 6: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•The war must be pursued for a just cause.•Unacceptable intentions:• Revenge• Political expansion• Land acquisition

6

Page 7: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•Traditionally, only nations have the authority to declare war.•Wars must be publicly declared, not pursued in secret.Question: Can terrorist groups be said to declare war? If not, is the response to terrorism really war?

7

Page 8: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•If there are other means of achieving the same objectives, such as negotiations or economic blockades, they should be pursued exhaustively first.

8

Page 9: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•The rationale here is clear and simple: war is a great evil, and it is wrong to cause such killing, suffering, and destruction in a futile effort. Question: what about countries that feel they are

resisting evil even when there is little or no chance of success? For example, small European countries being invaded by the Nazis.

9

Page 10: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•Are the possible benefits (especially in terms of a just peace) proportional to the death, suffering, and destruction that the pursuit of the war will bring about?

10

Page 11: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

Three principal conditions:1. Discrimination 2. Proportionality3. No means that are evil in themselves.

11

Page 12: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•The key requirement here is to discriminate between those who are engaged in harm (soldiers) and those who are not (civilians). •This has increasingly become an issue as countries such as the United States have turned to high altitude bombing campaigns that are more likely to put civilians at risk.

12

Page 13: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•Onoe should only use the amount of force that is proportional to the (just) ends being sought.•This raises interesting issues in the use of massive air strikes against bin Laden by the United States.

13

Page 14: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•Orend lists a number of means that count as evil in themselves.• “mass rape campaigns; • “genocide or ethnic cleansing; • “torturing captured enemy soldiers; and • “using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled, like

chemical or biological agents.”

14

Page 15: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

Brian Orend gives 5 conditions for a just peace:1. Just cause for termination. 2. Right intention. 3. Public declaration and legitimate authority. 4. Discrimination. 5. Proportionality.

15

Page 16: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•Orend: “a reasonable vindication of those rights whose violation grounded the resort to war in the first place.”• Unjust gains from aggression have been eliminated• Victims’ rights reinstated• Formal apology• Acceptance of reasonable punishment

16

Page 17: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•Excludes motives such as revenge •Prosecution of war crimes needs to be applied to all, not just the vanquished.

17

Page 18: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•This requirement is fairly straightforward and uncontroversial.

18

Page 19: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•Differentiate between• Political and military leaders• Military and civilian populations

•Punish the elite responsible for prosecuting the war, not the uninvolved civilians.

19

Page 20: Dr. Steve Hays BKHS Leadership and Ethics Spring 2014.

•The vanquished do not lose their rights• No ‘witch hunts’

•Proportional to reasonable rights vindication

20