Intentions and Consequences in Military Ethics

Abstract

Utilitarianism is the strand of moral philosophy that holds that judgment of whether an act is morally right or wrong, hence whether it ought to be done or not, is primarily based upon the foreseen consequences of the act in question. It has a bad reputation in military ethics because it would supposedly make military expedience override all other concerns. Given that the utilitarian credo of 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number' is in fact 'agent-neutral', meaning that the consequences to everyone should weigh equally, this critique of utilitarianism is not entirely fair. By focusing on some anomalies in both the 'principle of double effect' and in our tendency to give priority to the interests of those who are near and dear to us, this article argues that there is something to be said for a military ethic that attaches less weight to intentions, and more to the consequences.

Rivalry and its antidote in charity: Lessons from the crucifixion for wars and rumours of wars

“…Following intervention in Libya in 2011, however, there has been a noticeable shift in appetite away from intervention, with renewed emphasis on means other than force to strengthen compliance with international law (Bellamy and Williams, 2012; UN Security Council, 2013). Ultimately, humanitarian intervention raises concerns about the damaging consequences of resorting to force, even for benevolent purposes, as much as the consequences of failing to intervene (Cole, 2011; Johnson, 1999; Olsthoorn, 2011).…”

Military Robots and the Question of Responsibility

“…Would the use of military robots not be counterproductive to winning the hearts and minds of occupied populations, or result in more desperate terrorist-tactics given an increasing asymmetry in warfare? (See for an overview Lin, Bekey, and Abney, 2008;Lichocki, Kahn, and Billard, 2011;Olsthoorn and Royakkers, 2011). A particularly pressing question is what to do when things go wrong: who, if anyone, can be held morally accountable in reason for an act of violence that a) involves a military robot; and b) would normally be described as a war crime?…”