Violence and War (Leaving Cert Religious Education): Revision Notes
Violence and war
Understanding moral decision-making in violent situations
When confronted with situations involving violence and war, people must draw upon moral philosophy to guide their decisions about what constitutes right and wrong action. These decisions often carry profound consequences and require careful ethical reasoning to determine the most appropriate response.
Moral decision-making in violent situations is particularly challenging because it often involves competing values, uncertain outcomes, and profound consequences for human life and wellbeing.
How moral theories approach violence and war
Different ethical frameworks offer distinct perspectives on when violence might be morally justified or condemned:
Consequentialist approaches
Consequentialist Ethics and Violence
These theories evaluate violent actions based on their outcomes and results. Someone using this framework would consider whether the consequences justify the means used.
- Whether violence prevents greater suffering or harm
- The overall impact on the greatest number of people
- Long-term consequences for society and future generations
- If peaceful alternatives would produce worse outcomes
Practical Application: Military Intervention
A consequentialist might support military intervention if it prevents genocide, even though violence is normally undesirable. They would weigh the immediate harm caused by intervention against the potential mass casualties that could occur without action.
Deontological approaches
Duty-Based Ethics and Violence
These frameworks focus on moral duties and absolute rules, regardless of consequences. The emphasis is on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions themselves.
- Certain actions may be inherently wrong, even if they produce good results
- The sanctity of human life as an absolute moral principle
- Treating people as ends in themselves, never merely as means
- Universal moral laws that apply in all circumstances
A deontologist might oppose all violence because it violates the fundamental duty not to harm others, regardless of the potential positive outcomes that violence might achieve.
Virtue ethics approaches
Character-Based Ethics and Violence
This perspective asks what character traits and virtues should guide responses to violent situations, focusing on moral character rather than rules or consequences.
- What would a courageous, just, and compassionate person do?
- How do our actions reflect our moral character?
- What response demonstrates practical wisdom in difficult circumstances?
- How can we act with integrity while facing moral complexity?
Key moral considerations in violence and war
Moral philosophy identifies several crucial factors when evaluating decisions about violence:
Essential Principles for Evaluating Violence
These moral considerations form the foundation for ethical decision-making in violent situations and must be carefully weighed in any moral evaluation.
Just cause: Violence should only be used for morally legitimate reasons, such as self-defence or protecting innocent people from serious harm.
Proportionality: The level of violence must be appropriate to the threat faced. Excessive force becomes morally unjustifiable even when some violence might be warranted.
Last resort: All reasonable peaceful alternatives should be exhausted before resorting to violence. This includes negotiation, diplomacy, and other non-violent responses.
Right intention: The motives behind violent action matter morally. Violence motivated by revenge or hatred differs ethically from violence used reluctantly to protect others.
Discrimination: Moral decision-making requires distinguishing between legitimate targets and innocent civilians who should never be deliberately harmed.
Reasonable chance of success: Using violence when it cannot achieve its stated goals may cause unnecessary suffering without moral justification.
Applying moral frameworks to real situations
In practice, moral decision-making about violence often involves weighing competing ethical principles:
- Individual rights vs collective security: Protecting one person's rights might conflict with ensuring broader community safety
- Immediate vs long-term considerations: What seems right in the short term might have harmful consequences over time
- Certainty vs uncertainty: Moral decisions often must be made with incomplete information about likely outcomes
- Personal conviction vs social responsibility: Individual conscience might conflict with duties to others or society
The Challenge of Competing Values
These competing demands require careful moral reasoning and often involve difficult compromises between different ethical values. There may not always be a clear "right" answer when moral principles conflict.
War and organised violence
When considering organised conflict and warfare, additional moral considerations apply:
Authority: Who has the legitimate right to declare war or authorise large-scale violence? This raises questions about government authority and democratic consent.
Conduct in war: Even when war itself might be justified, the methods used must still meet moral standards, including protection of civilians and proportionate force.
Post-conflict responsibilities: Moral obligations continue after violence ends, including duties to rebuild, provide humanitarian aid, and seek reconciliation.
Just War Theory
These considerations form part of what philosophers call "Just War Theory" - a framework for evaluating both when war might be justified (jus ad bellum) and how war should be conducted (jus in bello).
Key Points to Remember:
- Different moral theories can lead to different conclusions about when violence is justified, requiring careful consideration of competing ethical frameworks
- Key considerations include just cause, proportionality, last resort, right intention, and discrimination between combatants and civilians
- Consequentialist approaches focus on outcomes, while deontological approaches emphasise moral duties regardless of results
- Virtue ethics asks what character traits should guide our responses to violent situations and how our actions reflect our moral integrity
- Real-world decisions often require balancing competing ethical principles and values, making moral reasoning about violence particularly complex