Реферат: The Ethics Of War Essay Research Paper

the loss of civilian life must be unavoidable and balanced by a proportionate

good to the defender.”

This view is not shared by Ford, who in his article “The Hydrogen

Bombing of Cities”, he argues that it is never permissible to kill

noncombatants.

It is never permitted to kill directly noncombatants in wartime. Why?

Because they are innocent. That is, they are innocent of the violent

and destructive action of war, or of any close participation in the

violent and destructive action of war. It is such participation alone

that would make them legitimate targets of violent repression

themselves….they are innocent of the one thing which in our theology

would make them legitimate targets of direct violence, namely violent

war-making, or sufficiently close cooperation in violent war-making.

While Ford makes a strong argument, I do not agree with his position on this

subject. I believe that civilian lives must be spared whenever it is possible to

do so. However, there are going to be situations where doing so would

jeopardize the war effort or cause more casualties than would be spared.

I consider myself somewhat of a utilitarian, so I believe in the greatest

good for the greatest number of people argument. I also believe that this

utilitarian argument is relevant to an “ethics of war” discussion. Obviously, if

dropping a nuclear bomb on an enemy country is going to save more lives in

the long run than would be killed by the bomb, then I would be all for it.

There are, as I said before, going to be discrepancies in each situation. In his

article titled, “The Morality of Using Nuclear Weapons”, Velasquez says:

If the evil of killing the many people that would die in a nuclear

holocaust is greater than the good that would be achieved, then it

would be wrong to use nuclear weapons…If more good than evil

would result, and if no other alternative will produce a greater

balance of good over evil, then it is moral to use such weapons.