There are countless books on this subject and I really don't know the answer and I imagine most people are wrong about all these questions.
I imagine war is justifiable in certain instances, but I am not certain.
I think the way in which I personally justify or at least excuse (more on that later) war is by considering the alternatives. War is a response, some times, to a severe problem. Of course, when the problem is not severe or does not exist (i.e. Iraq), the war is not justified. But let's assume the problem does exist.
Most people agree that war isn't the first solution we should employ. But I reject the idea that war is always the worst solution. At times, alternatives like genocide or severe sanctions can have a much worse effect on the general civilian populace. War at least delineates between legitimate targets and illegitimate targets.
So when war is the best option, should it be employed? I think so.
The decision to go to war should be agonizing. It should be careful, it should prefer heavily non-violent or smaller scale alternatives, and war should seldom if ever be used.
So war may be the best option, and then it probably should be employed. Is this moral? Yes, from a policy standpoint, as I believe in rule utilitarianism with deontic side constraints, so yes-- if the decision was very careful. The existence of a standing military, populist war hawk rhetoric, and falsehoods often confound these decisions and I think therein lies the problem.
I've always been generally favorably disposed towards humanitarian intervention, but I recently read that interventions-- even such seemingly necessary ones as the Rwandan or Bosnian intervention-- are far less economically efficient ways of saving lives than food and medical aid. I think this raises a fascinating and legitimate question, and it is one I struggle to deal with.
No comments:
Post a Comment