Henrik Syse

Religion, War, and Ethics: A Sourcebook of Textual Traditions

Preface Gregory M. Reichberg and Henrik Syse Introduction Henrik Syse and Nicole M. Hartwell 1. Judaism Adam Afterman and Gedaliah Afterman 2. Roman Catholic Christianity Gregory M. Reichberg and Robert Araujo, S. J. 3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity Yuri Stoyanov 4. Protestant Christianity Valerie Ona Morkevicius 5. Sunni Islam Nesrine Badawi and John Kelsay 6. Shia Islam Mohammad Faghfoory 7. Hinduism Kaushik Roy 8. Theravada Buddhism Mahinda Deegalle 9. Chinese and Korean religious traditions Vladimir Tikhonov 10. Japanese religious traditions Soho Machida 11. Sikhism Torkel Brekke.

Plato, Thucydides, and the Education of Alcibiades

Abstract The problem of the relationship between warmaking and the health of the city constitutes an important part of the Platonic corpus. In the Platonic dialogue Alcibiades I, considered in antiquity one of Platos most important works, Socrates leads Alcibiades to agree that there ought to be a close link between justice and decisions about war. In light of this, Alcibiades’ actual advice to the city regarding the Peace of Nicias, as portrayed by Thucydides in History of the Peloponnesian War, is put in stark relief within the dialogue. Platos dialogue about Alcibiades can thus be seen as offering an alternative and morally critical account of how Alcibiades could have used his talents and rhetorical skills in addressing the city on the issue of war. More broadly, it reminds us of the difference between true statesmanship focused on the common good, and political or military rule engaged in for personal benefit or ambition.

Responsibility and Culpability in War

Abstract This article furnishes a philosophical background for the current debate about responsibility and culpability for war crimes by referring to ideas from three important just war thinkers: Augustine, Francisco de Vitoria, and Michael Walzer. It combines lessons from these three thinkers with perspectives on current problems in the ethics of war, distinguishes between legal culpability, moral culpability, and moral responsibility, and stresses that even lower-ranking soldiers must in many cases assume moral responsibility for their acts, even though they are part of a military hierarchy and act under orders. The questions addressed in this article are arguably among the hardest and most muddled in military ethics and deserve close philosophical analysis and scrutiny.

Protecting the Natural Environment in Wartime: Ethical Considerations from the Just War Tradition

Environmental destruction in war - does that fall under the purview of ethics? Some claim that war itself is not a subject of ethics; others hold that ethics deals strictly with interhuman relationships, not with the relationship between human beings and nature. We argue that the just war (bellum justum) tradition of moral reflection points in another direction. It provides an ethical vocabulary for assessing the impact of war on our natural environment. After some introductory comments on the relationship between ethical inquiry and the international laws of armed conflict, this article considers the conceptions of war and of nature which underlie just war thinking, with special emphasis on St Thomas Aquinass formulation of this tradition. It specifically addresses two well-known debates: the debate between pacifists and realists on the one hand, and the debate between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric views on nature on the other. Then, through an exposition and application of the criteria of competent authority, just cause, right intention, discrimination, and proportionality, as well as the rule of double effect, the article shows how just war arguments can clarify contemporary moral thinking about environmental damage in war.

Plato: The Necessity of War, the Quest for Peace

Although Plato writes less about war than we might expect--especially considering the fact that his dialogues are historically set during the Peloponnesian War--the right conduct of war constitutes a crucial concern for Plato. In both the Alcibiades and Laches dialogues, rightful conduct of war is linked to the practice of virtue. Neither a good statesman nor a good military man can ignore this link, which joins military pursuits not only to courage, but to the whole of virtue, including justice. In the Republic , the passage from a luxurious city to a well-ordered and virtuous city is described by means of the proper education of the citys military guardians, and a teaching of ius in bello --to use a just-war term--for wars between Greeks is outlined. Finally, in the Laws , peace, not war, is presented as the true aim of good laws, and the importance of legitimate authority in war-making is duly emphasized.

Investments, Universal Ownership, and Public Health

This chapter examines the role of investors, and asks whether they may be able to affect positively international public health. It is often said that most investors primarily take a short-term profit perspective. This chapter introduces the role of universal ownership by large fund managers (mutual funds, retirement funds, and sovereign wealth funds) around the world. Ethics and long-term self-interest can here work together as an engine for positive social change.

The Religious Traditions of Japan

Religion in Japan has arisen from an amalgamation of different traditions, the most important of which are arguably Shinto, Buddhism, and various forms of folk belief. Even though the majority of contemporary Japanese do not necessarily show a keen interest in religion, it remains true that these religious traditions have formed the core of Japanese culture over the centuries. Today, religion still substantially affects daily life through rituals and festivals and by informing the thought and fundamental values of the Japanese people . Introduction: Peaceful versus Militant Buddhism Within Buddhism many forms and traditions of subtle variations all coexist simultaneously, and Buddhism in Japan is no exception. Buddhism was formally introduced into Japan in the sixth century. Its endorsement by the aristocracy contributed to its eventual acceptance throughout Japan. The reception of Buddhism among the Japanese people is partially due to the ease of integrating Buddhism with the preexisting culture shaped by the indigenous religion of Shinto.

100 years hence

As this issue of the Journal of Military Ethics appears, it is exactly 100 years since the First World War broke out. That makes for sober reflections on the ethics of warfare. In hindsight, and using the language of military ethics, the First World War represents a tragic failure measured up against all three categories of just-war reasoning: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Its outbreak was arguably a result of suspicions, misunderstandings, lack of diplomacy, and unrealistic ambitions of power. On the battlefield, it was protracted, painful, and costly in terms of human lives and suffering. And its ending turned out both vindictive and harsh, contributing, most historians agree, to laying the groundwork for a new world war. Yet, at the time, the ‘Great War’ was often seen as glorious: The timing was right, the fighting was brave, and the end result punished the main aggressor in a decisive way. Admittedly, there were numerous poets, philosophers, humanitarians, and not least endless suffering individuals who saw the war for what it was, most deeply: a more or less futile exercise in destruction and political maneuvering. Yet we are struck by how it was bolstered by a deep-seated patriotic spirit among so many, and by how long its destructiveness could last. An important part of the picture is also, of course, the actual and very real bravery shown by so many soldiers, many of whom paid the ultimate price for their efforts. Is there anything to learn from this page of history today? Are not world wars a thing of the past? While the First World War remains interesting historically, are not our present concerns terrorism, humanitarian catastrophes, and civil wars, rather than global cataclysms? While that is true in terms of the make-up of current armed conflict, the geopolitical landscape is changing fast, and suspicions and conflicting agendas are clouding the relations between Russia, China, and the United States. The rifts are not primarily ideological, which was true in 1914, too. The problems are financial, cultural, territorial – and ‘human’, displaying lack of trust and cooperation. Our world is significantly more interconnected, institutionally and electronically, than the world of 1914. That, we would hope, makes the world significantly safer, as well. But with the new spectacle of unmanned weapons and cyber weaponry with global reach, as well as the persistent presence of nuclear arms, we should heed the lessons of 1914–1918, and redouble our efforts to avoid another world war. Let us remember also that in 1914, as today, there was much talk of the world being so interconnected, especially in terms of economics, that large-scale, international war was so to speak unthinkable. It was wrong then. It may be wrong now. In this endeavor to avoid world war the conversation about and practice of sound military ethics – ad bellum, in bello, and post bellum – must play a crucial role. That is yet another reason why the conversations taking place within the pages of this journal are so important. We thank warmly all those who contribute to it: our authors, referees, editorial members, and of course our readers.

Trust, Truth, and Tenacity

How much should we trust machines – and the algorithms they follow? To what extent should we blindly trust and follow rules? Several of the articles in this issue of the Journal of Military Ethics deal with extremely complex situations, such as the role and proper employment of autonomous weapons systems, the right implementation of rules of engagement, the ethical aspects of moral injury, and the truly vexed problems of desertion and cowardice. For all such challenges, rules and blueprints do exist. Yet, for all of them, morality, emotions, and the concrete exigencies of each case muddy the waters. That, we believe, is more of a good thing than a bad thing. As emphasized in this issue’s case study, attending to the circumstances of each situation is crucial. This may sound trivial, but it is surely not. Analyzing the concrete and complex circumstances of the case at hand in a way that is attentive to its moral aspects –Who are actually involved? Who is the weakest party? Who stands to gain? What are my duties? – admittedly takes much work and serious dialogue, but that is the kind of work and the sort of dialogue that we need more of, not less. In that spirit, we follow up an article by Cornelia Vikan from our previous issue with a case study dealing with child abuse encountered by ISAF soldiers. As Vikan’s commentary in this issue to Carlos Bertha’s well-formulated case underlines, we do not have one solution that fits all such cases (and there are, alas, many of them). That is the whole point of serious case studies: to understand how the particulars must inform our use of basic moral principles – indeed, principles that many of us hold to be universal. Is there, in the end, a moral truth in such situations? At least we would hold that the tenacity required for unveiling such a truth – if there is one – is worth every ounce of hardship that we put into our analyses. Our gratitude, as always, to our authors and referees.

Editors’ Introduction: Are We All the Same?

The inclusion of such variegated studies from highly different contexts reminds us of one of the oldest questions in ethics overall: how well does ethics travel? Are different cultures able to communicate effectively with each other about ethical issues? Can we learn from experiences made within another tradition, in another language, and by people with different expectations and possibly even different values? The ambition of the present journal is to make such dialogue fruitful and possible within military ethics. This ambition is explicitly based on the idea of a profession. Military ethics must, in our view, primarily remain a species of professional ethics (even if we gladly admit that one may discuss such issues as just war also within a purely philosophical framework, the latter, however, being different from what dominates this journal). While a profession might be executed and understood differently within different cultural settings, it must at its core include an idea of the profession as such: what it is for, what its main norms and limits are, and what it means to be a legitimate and sound executor of that profession. Facilitating a global dialogue about that idea is indeed a core ambition of this journal. As part of the development and maintenance of such “professional ethics,” listening to and learning from the experiences of others are key requirements. Hence, we hope that the international flavor of the present double issue will be appreciated by the reader. We even dare to accompany that hope with a wish for more submissions from a wide variety of traditions, regions, and viewpoints.