Human beings have been fighting each other since prehistoric times, and people have been discussing the rights and wrongs of it for almost as long.

War is bad
The Ethics of War starts by assuming that war is a bad thing, and should be avoided if possible, but it recognises that there can be situations when war may be the lesser evil of several bad choices.

War is a bad thing because it involves deliberately killing or injuring people, and this is a fundamental wrong - an abuse of the victims' human rights.

War ethics
The purpose of war ethics is to help decide what is right or wrong, both for individuals and countries, and to contribute to debates on public policy, and ultimately to government and individual action.

War ethics also leads to the creation of formal codes of war (e.g. the Hague and Geneva conventions), the drafting and implementation of rules of engagement for soldiers, and in the punishment of soldiers and others for war crimes.

The three key questions are:

Is it ever right to go to war?
When is it right to wage war?
What is the moral way to conduct a war?

Pacifism
There are several different sorts of pacifism, but they all include the idea that war and violence are unjustifiable, and that conflicts should be settled in a peaceful way.

The word (but not the idea) is only a century old, being first used in 1902 at the 10th International Peace Conference.

People are pacifists for one or some of these reasons:

religious faith
non-religious belief in the sanctity of life
practical belief that war is wasteful and ineffective
Many believe that pacifism is more than opposition to war. They argue that it must include action to promote justice and human rights. (Consider for example whether the preservation of peace throughout the British Empire justified the human rights violations of that colonial regime.)

Levels of pacifism
It's important to see the difference between the morality of pacifism as it applies to an individual, and the application of that morality to the behaviour of a nation-state.

Not appreciating this difference can lead to real difficulties in discussing pacifism and non-violence.

Consistency
Pacifists are often thought of as totally opposed to killing, but they don't have to be. A pacifist can logically support euthanasia and abortion, although they would need to have thought their position through very carefully.

Types of pacifism

Absolute pacifism
An absolute pacifist believes that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately.

To stick to this principle consistently is hard. It views it as unethical to use violence to rescue an innocent person who is being attacked and may be killed, and this is not a comfortable moral position.

Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically argue that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence.

Conditional pacifism
Conditional pacifists are against war and violence in principle, but they accept that there may be circumstances when war will be less bad than the alternative.

Conditional pacifists usually base their moral code on Utilitarian principles - it's the bad consequences that make it wrong to resort to war or violence.

Selective pacifism
Other pacifists believe that it is a matter of degree, and only oppose wars involving weapons of mass destruction - nuclear or chemical and biological weapons - either because of the uniquely devastating consequences of such weapons, or because a war that uses such weapons is not 'winnable'.

Active pacifism
Pacifists are heavily involved in political activity to promote peace, and to argue against particular wars.

During a war many pacifists will refuse to fight, but some will take part in activities that seek to reduce the harm of war; e.g. by driving ambulances, but other pacifists will refuse to take part in any activity that might support the war.

Not all pacifists are brave enough to act according to these beliefs and to refuse to fight, but many have, bravely choosing punishment, and even execution, rather than go to war.

Nowadays most democratic countries accept that people have the right of conscientious objection to military service, but they usually expect the objector to undertake some form of public service as an alternative.

Arguments against pacifism

Pacifism cannot be national policy
Pacifism as national policy for a nation is almost unheard of, for the obvious reason that it will only work if no-one wants to attack your country, or the nation with whom you are in dispute is also committed to pacifism. In any other circumstances adopting a pacifist stance will result in your country rapidly being conquered.

However, the idea of pacifism, and of seeking non-violent solutions to disputes between nations, plays a significant part in international politics, particularly through the work of the United Nations.

The logical case against Pacifism
Those who oppose pacifism say that because the world is not perfect, war is not always wrong.

They say that states have a duty to protect their citizens, and that citizens have a duty to carry out certain tasks in a Just War.

It doesn't matter that pacifists are motivated by respect for human life and a love of peace. The pacifists' refusal to participate in war does not make them noble idealists, but people who are failing to carry out an important moral obligation.

A second argument says that pacifism has no place in the face of extreme evil.

The war against Nazi Germany was a war against extreme wickedness, and in 1941 an editorial in the Times Literary Supplement wrote:

We have discovered that there is something more horrible than war - the killing of the spirit in the body, the Nazi contempt for the individual man. The world reeks with the foulness of the crimes in occupied Europe, where a Dark Age has begun anew.

Pacifism and remembrance

Because most societies regard going to war as fulfilling a citizen's ethical duty, they honour and remember those who give their lives in war.

If we believe that war is governed by ethics we should only honour those who give their lives in a Just War, and who followed the rules of war.

So, for example, it should be wrong to honour dead soldiers who killed the enemy or wounded or raped enemy women. (But this distinction is not usually made about those who fought on 'our' side.)

A more tricky moral dilemma is presented by the case of soldiers who died while fighting 'justly' for an unjust war.

Many soldiers died fighting honourably and decently for Germany in World War II. But since the war was a blatantly aggressive and unjust war would it be wrong to honour such soldiers for their sacrifice?

Religion and Pacificism

Some religions, such as Buddhism, promote pacifism. Others have strong pacifist elements, such as Christianity, but have accepted that war is inevitable and sought to provide moral guidance in dealing with conflict.

Judaism, like other religions, is strongly opposed to violence, and where violence is permitted the minimum necessary should be used.

But Jewish law does occasionally argue that violence may be the only solution: it imposes a moral obligation to save the life of a person who is being killed, even if the only way of doing so is to kill the attacker. (This demonstrates that Judaism regards going to the aid of someone who is being attacked as a higher moral duty than not injuring people.)

Jewish law also specifically obliges Jews to use violence on the Sabbath as a response to an invasion.

What is a Just War?

Six conditions must be satisfied for a war to be considered just:

The war must be for a just cause.
The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.
The intention behind the war must be good.
All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.
There must be a reasonable chance of success.
The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

How should a Just War be fought?

A war that starts as a Just War may stop being a Just War if the means used to wage it are inappropriate.

Innocent people and non-combatants should not be harmed.
Only appropriate force should be used.
This applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used.
Internationally agreed conventions regulating war must be obeyed.

The conduct of war

This is the issue of how a war should be fought, rather than why or if it should be fought.

For a war to be a just war it must be fought according to certain rules - a war which is just in cause can be unjust in the way it is fought, or the other way around.

The concept of the just conduct of war has the latin name of Jus In Bello.

The principle topics concerned are:

whom it is ethical to fight
how much force it is ethical to use
is the use of certain weapons always wrong?
the role of international conventions on war
While the issues of when is it right to go to war are high level issues for governments, the issues of the conduct of war often end up on the desk of military commanders, or fall to the instant decision of individual soldiers.

Whom can you fight?
Is it immoral to involve civilians in a war? Who is, and who isn't, a combatant?

How much force can be used?
The force used should be 'proportional' or 'appropriate': the force needed to win, and no more.

So it is probably unethical to use a flame-thrower or a machine gun against an enemy who is armed only with clubs (although if these were the only weapons available and the alternative was surrendering and being killed, what then?).

It is certainly unethical to kill the soldiers of an army that has surrendered.

Weapons that are intrinsically evil
These are usually taken to be chemical and biological weapons. These were banned by the Geneva Protocol in 1925.

Many writers argue that nuclear weapons are inherently evil.

There is a growing view that landmines, because they are indiscriminate weapons which cause great harm to civilians, are inherently evil.

Certain military methods are also regarded as intrinsically evil such as genocide, mass rape, torture and so on.

The Hague Convention of 1907 bans:

poison or poisoned weapons
killing or wounding treacherously
killing or wounding an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion
declaring that no mercy will be given to defeated opponents
using arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering

International conventions
Where countries have signed a convention governing warfare, soldiers are considered to merit punishment if they break any of the rules in that convention.

Holy wars

Modern people often regard the idea of a holy war as a contradiction. Killing thousands of people and causing wholesale destruction seems to be as far from holiness as one can get.

But religion and war have gone hand in hand for a long time. Armies go into battle believing that God is with them, often after prayers and sacrifices to keep God on their side. In tribal cultures (including Biblical ones) when a people lose a war they often have to change to the worship of the winner's gods.

However involving God as part of the campaign does not make a war a holy war - for a war to be a holy war, religion has to be the driving force.

Holy wars usually have three elements:

the achievement of a religious goal
authorised by a religious leader
a spiritual reward for those who take part
Many of the wars fought in the name of religion do conform to the just war conditions, but not all of them.

Religious causes

Francis Bacon said there were five causes for holy war: (he wrote in a Christian context, but the categories would be usable by any faith)

to spread the faith
to retrieve countries that were once Christian, even though there are no Christians left there
to rescue Christians in countries that were once Christian from 'the servitude of the infidels'
recover and purify consecrated places that are presently being 'polluted and profaned'
avenge blasphemous acts, or cruelties and killings of Christians (even if these took place long ago)
Only the first of these causes is completely outside the scope of the conventional idea of a just cause. Some of the other causes, because of the length of time that can pass since the offending act took place are probably not just causes either.

Lawful authority

The legitimate authority for a holy war is not the government of a state (except in a theocracy) but the Church, or the relevant organisation or person who heads the religious institution concerned.

In ancient times the authority was often God - in the Bible there are several occasions where God gave direct instructions to peoples to wage war. This would not be the case today.

Personal reward

The third condition of a holy war is a spiritual reward for those who take part. The doctrine of the just war does not refer to any personal rewards for the participants - and such rewards would be against such a generally austere doctrine.

History
The first holy war was probably in October 312 CE when the Roman emperor Constantine saw a vision of the cross in the sky with this inscription "in hoc signo vinces" (in this sign you will win).

Constantine trusted the vision and had the cross inscribed on his soldiers' armor. Even though his forces were outnumbered, he won the battle against an army that was using pagan enchantment. (Historians regard this as a turning point in Christianity's fortune.)

The Crusades
The great series of western holy wars were the Crusades, which lasted from 1095 until 1291 CE. The aim was to capture the sacred places in the Holy Land from the Muslims who lived there, so it was intended as a war to right wrongs done against Christianity.

The first Crusade was started by Pope Urban II in 1095. He raged at the capture of the holy places and the treatment given to Christians, and ordered a war to restore Christianity. He said that the war would have the support of God:

Let this be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God!
..Whoever shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast.
The pope also absolved all who took part in the crusade of all their sins.

The first Crusade captured Jerusalem after bitter fighting, and the residents of the city were brutalised and slaughtered by the Christian invaders. The invaders' conduct breached the principles of modern just war ethics, and the massacres still colour Islamic politics today.

Buddhism and war

Non-violence is at the heart of Buddhist thinking and behaviour. The first of the five precepts that all Buddhists should follow is "Avoid killing, or harming any living thing."

Buddhism is essentially a peaceful tradition. Nothing in Buddhist scripture gives any support to the use of violence as a way to resolve conflict.

In times of war
Give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion,
Helping living beings
Abandon the will to fight.
One of Buddha's sermons puts this very clearly with a powerful example that stresses the need to love your enemy no matter how cruelly he treats you:

"Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching."
Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya I ~ 28-29

Figures like the Dalai Lama (who won the Nobel Peace Prize) demonstrate in word and deed Buddhism's commitment to peace.

"Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone.
This is the ancient law."
Many Buddhists have refused to take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. The Buddhist code that governs the life of monks permits them to defend themselves, but it forbids them to kill, even in self-defence.

For Buddhist countries this poses the difficult dilemma of how to protect the rights and lives of their citizens without breaking the principle of nonviolence.

The pure Buddhist attitude is shown in this story:

A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence.
"You're a fool," said the veteran - "what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!"
Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently "It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.
"In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma."

Buddhism and martial arts

Buddhist monks have been leaders in developing various forms of martial arts. The Shaolin Order is perhaps the best known of these, famed for their fighting prowess.

Martial arts would seem to be about as far from non-violence as you can get, but Buddhist forms of martial arts have very strict rules about how violence can be used.

The Shaolin teaching forbids the monk from ever being the aggressor, and instructs him to use only the minimum necessary defensive force. By becoming skilled in physical conflict the monk has a better understanding of violence and is able to use sophisticated techniques to avoid harm, ranging from simple parrying of clumsy blows to paralysing grips and knockout blows in the face of extreme violence - but always using only the amount of force needed to refuse the violence that is being offered to them.

Most martial arts traditions have strong spiritual and philosophical elements, and insist on a responsible and minimalist attitude to violence.

Buddhism and violence

But Buddhism, like the other great faiths, has not always lived up to its principles - there are numerous examples of Buddhists engaging in violence and even war.

in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China
in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters
In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression. For example, Sawaki Kodo (1880–1965) wrote this in 1942:

"It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."
Sawaki Kodo

In Sri Lanka the 20th century civil war between the mostly Buddhist Sinhalese majority and the Hindu Tamil minority has cost 50,000 lives.