Supporting Material for Chapter 4: Applied 1. The re-emergence of : summary

z Applied ethics, a traditional practice among philosophers, disappeared from the main centres of Anglo-Saxon for some six decades early in the twen- tieth century. z The branch of ethics called meta-ethics took centre stage during that period; aspects unfavourable to applied ethics are illustrated here. z Philosophical factors promoting the re-emergence of applied ethics included meta- and ’ revival of contract theory. z Non-philosophical factors included ecological concerns and responses to the Vietnam War. z Ethics was applied, from the seventies onwards, not only to medicine and war but also to themes of social development and of the environment. z Further fields (both discussed in this section) have been those of obligations to future generations and of ethics. z Possible obligations to future generations include the Just Savings (sug- gested by John Rawls) and the Equal Resources Principle (suggested by Brian Barry). z proposes that we address the Non-Identity Problem (duties seemingly cannot be owed to the unidentifiable people of the future) by accepting duties with regard to whoever there will be. z Population policies, rather than being coercive, should be integrated with policies of development, as discussed in the section on Development Ethics.

Learning objectives

z Through studying this section you will be enabled to grasp how and why applied ethics disappeared from the Anglo-Saxon philosophical scene in the early twenti- eth century and later re-emerged. z You will be able to understand why meta-ethics at one stage seemed to comprise the study of ethics as a whole. z You will also be able to understand how developments such as meta-ethical natu- ralism and John Rawls’ contract theory contributed to the revival of applied ethics, together with certain key non-philosophical factors.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 1 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:1812:36:18 AMAM Applied Ethics

z You will be in a position to understand how from the seventies onwards ethics was applied not only to traditional themes such as medicine and war but also to new themes such as social development and the environment. z You will further be able to grasp a cluster of applied issues surrounding obligations to future generations and . z You will be able to adopt a view of your own about the kind of obligations that current people have towards their successors, and whether or not the Non-Identity Problem is an obstacle to acceptance of such obligations. z You will also be able to begin forming a view about population ethics and its rela- tion to future-related obligations and to development ethics.

Essay title and reading What are the basis and extent of our obligations towards future people? Attfield, Robin, ‘ and Intergenerational Equity’, Inquiry, 41, 1998, pp. 207–22 Barry, Brian, ‘The Ethics of ’, in Brian Barry, and : Essays in Political Theory, 2, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. de-Shalit, Avner, Why Posterity Matters: Environmental Policies and Future Generations, London: Routledge, 1995. Golding, M. P. and N. H. Golding, ‘Why Preserve Landmarks?’, in K. E. Goodpaster and K. M. Sayre (eds), Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century, Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979, pp. 175–90. Hare, R. M., ‘Possible People’, in R. M. Hare, Essays in , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, pp. 67–83. O’Neill, John, Ecology, Policy and Politics, London and New York: Routledge, 1993. Partridge, Ernest (ed.), Responsibilities to Future Generations: Environmental Ethics, Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1981. Sikora, R. I. and Brian Barry, Obligations to Future Generations (first published Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978), Cambridge: White Horse Press, 1996. 2. : summary

z The history of medical ethics stretches from the Hippocratic Oath to modern bioethics, with the Nuremberg Code as a key step along the way. z Many of the of medical ethics are detectable in and from this history, with as a key twentieth-century emphasis. z Bioethics arose in the 1970s after philosophers such as John Rawls, and, differently, Richard Hare devised ways of applying ethical theory to issues of life and death. z An innovative approach to the ethics of abortion was introduced by Judith Jarvis Thomson, but queried by consequentialists; of these, Hare’s distinctive approach is also considered.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 2 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:1912:36:19 AMAM Applied Ethics

z The place of principles in medical ethics (specifically: beneficence, non-malefi- cence, autonomy and justice), as proposed by Tom Beauchamp and J. F. Childress, is discussed. z Objections to this approach, focusing on the interpretation of autonomy, are con- sidered with the aid of examples, together with the approach of situationism that makes principles subordinate to judgements about cases. z But even if judgements about particular cases are sometimes more securely known than principles, the principles may still supply the reasons or justifications for the judgements. z Some often neglected issues relating to justice and international equity in medical ethics are finally brought to attention. z The increasing spread of tropical diseases in poor countries due to global warming intensifies issues relating to the fair international distribution of medical resources.

Learning objectives

z Through studying this section, you will be enabled to grasp key stages in the his- tory of medical ethics. z You will also be enabled to understand the philosophical origins of bioethics and the application of ethical theory to issues of life and death. z You will be enabled, through study of the arguments of Judith Jarvis Thomson, Richard Hare and others, to form a philosophically informed view on the ethics of abortion. z You will be enabled to understand the debate about the place of principles in medical ethics, including the views of proponents of principles and opponents of theirs who make principles subordinate to judgements about cases. z You will thus be put in a position to form a view of your own about the role of principles, and about how to appraise situations where principles conflict. z You will also be in a position to interpret what is involved in respecting autonomy in medical contexts. z You will further be enabled to reflect on issues concerning justice and international equity in medical ethics, issues which are widely recognized in theory but often neglected in practice. z You will thus be alerted to issues of the fair distribution of medical resources aris- ing from the spread of tropical diseases due to global warming.

Essay title and reading What principles should be employed to arrive at decisions in matters of abortion? Beauchamp, Tom L. and James F. Childress (eds), Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Beauchamp and Childress, 6th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 3 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:1912:36:19 AMAM Applied Ethics

Beauchamp, Tom L. and LeRoy Walters (eds), Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 2nd edn, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1982, chapter 6. Glover, Jonathan, Causing Death and Saving Lives, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1977, chapters pp. 9–11. Hare, R. M., ‘Abortion and the Golden Rule’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 4, 1974–5, pp. 201–22. Harris, John, The of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985, chapters 1 and 8. Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, chapter 6. Thomson, Judith Jarvis, ‘A Defense of Abortion’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1, 1970–1, pp. 47–66. 3. : summary

z Animal ethics was pioneered in the ancient world and resurfaced in the humanitar- ian movement of the Early Modern period, but re-emerged recently in the 1970s because of new trends like factory farming. z Philosophical criticism took the form of an animal critique from and, differently, a consequentialist critique from . z A philosophical counter-critique from R. G. Frey, relating to arguments from rights, from killing and from , is introduced and appraised. z The ethics of transgenic engineering is discussed, together with the responsibilities of those considering the generation of new species. z The suggested genetic engineering of food-animals with little or no is criticized on grounds of curtailment of intrinsic value. z Examples are supplied of practices in agriculture and that produce unin- tended environmental outcomes, which suggest that consumer choices should take into account systemic impacts as well as animal treatment. z The philosophical case is expounded for regarding animal ethics and environmental ethics as antithetical approaches, each also in conflict with traditional humanism. z This case is criticized, since animal ethics and environmental ethics need not have different values, despite being concerned with different fields.

Learning objectives

z Through studying this section, you will be enabled to understand recent philo- sophical critiques of factory farming made from an perspective (Regan) and from a consequentialist perspective (Singer). z You will also be enabled to appraise for yourself the arguments against factory farming and in favour of from animal rights, from the wrongness of killing and from the wrongness of unnecessary suffering. z You will be enabled to form a view on the ethics of genetic engineering, and the production of transgenic species, including issues surrounding the quality of life of the newly engineered creatures.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 4 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:1912:36:19 AMAM Applied Ethics

z You will also be enabled to form a view about the suggested genetic engineering of food-animals unable to suffer through lack of sentience. z You will be enabled to reflect on unintended impacts of agriculture and fishing, and their bearing on the ethics of consumer choice. z You will be placed in a position to appraise the supposed conflict between animal ethics and environmental ethics, and grounds both for and against recognition of this supposed conflict.

Essay titles and reading Is vegetarianism defensible on consequentialist grounds, on animal rights grounds, on other grounds or not at all? Frey, R. G. , Rights, Killing and Suffering, Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. Midgley, , Animals and Why They Matter, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1983, chapters 6–9. Regan, Tom, ‘, Vegetarianism and Animal Rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9, 1979–80, pp. 305–24. —, The Case for Animal Rights, London: Routledge, 1983. Singer, Peter, ‘Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9, 1979–80, pp. 325–37. —, Practical Ethics, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, chapter 3.

Does giving priority to human beings over other animals amount to ? Fox, Michael Allen, ‘The Moral Community’, in Hugh LaFollette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, 3rd edn, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 2007, pp. 181–91. Frey, R. G., ‘Moral Standing, the Value of Lives and Speciesism’, in LaFollette (ed.), pp. 192–204. Regan, Tom, ‘The Case for Animal Rights’, in LaFollette (ed.), pp. 205–211. Singer, Peter, ‘All Animals are Equal’ in LaFollette (ed.), pp. 171–80.

Exercise: where do you stand on the following arguments? Here are some of Stephen Clark’s refutations of ‘sophisms of carnivores’, or of arguments against vegetarianism; see his book The Moral Status of Animals. One of these ‘sophisms’ runs: Animals kill one another; so why should not we kill them? Replies include (a) Non-human animals are not responsible agents, whereas humans (mostly) are; (b) the ones we kill are seldom the ones that kill others; and (c) killing does not justify more killing. Another is more subtle: rearing and killing for food is acceptable, as these animals would not exist otherwise. Clark first considers a reply which he later rejects: existence is not a benefit (which might have justified the practice), as the non-existent cannot be advantaged. This reply should be rejected on the

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 5 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:1912:36:19 AMAM Applied Ethics

following grounds: 1. If bringing about miserable lives is bad, then bringing about worthwhile lives will be . 2. If death is an when the life cur- tailed was worthwhile, then the conception of such a life must be a benefit. 3. If possible people / animals have moral standing, then the bestowing of worthwhile life upon such people must after all have positive grounds. Here is a better reply, also from Clark: the argument in question would (by parity) justify rearing humans as slaves. What actually makes life a blessing is the prospect of worthwhile life, and if we simultaneously facilitate life but eliminate that prospect, we do evil and not good. Thus the argument at best justifies (some) free-range farming. 4. Development ethics: summary

z Development is the process of moving away from the of low life expectancy, poor health, low literacy and low productivity to more satisfactory levels, through self-help and enhanced social justice. z Alternatively it is the condition of a society which has largely attained more satis- factory levels, again through self-help and greater social justice. z Development ethics studies the ethical and value questions posed by , planning and practice. z Not all processes of development deserve or receive the approval of those who recognize them as ‘development’. z Harry Truman’s 1949 model of development has been criticized as anti-communist , but his concepts of under-development and development are indispensable. z Peter Singer’s 1972 argument for individual obligations to alleviate famine remains relevant, but the issues need to be reconceived in terms of averting and preventing persistent malnutrition and promoting development. z Following Amartya Sen, interprets development as ‘a process of change that protects, restores, strengthens and expands people’s valued and valu- able capabilities’. z Onora O’Neill has shown how Kantianism, despite its defects, can underpin such an activist interpretation of development ethics. z Rawlsian contractarianism has been developed by Brian Barry and Charles R. Beitz so as to apply to fairer rules for international relations. Despite its shortcomings, contractarianism can thus play a part in development ethics. z The Brundtland Report (1987) defined ‘’ as development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 6 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:1912:36:19 AMAM Applied Ethics

z Sustainable development, in that Report, is sustainable both economically, socially and environmentally, and recognizes the intrinsic value of living creatures. z The endorsement of sustainable development at the Rio Summit of 1992 led to sustainable development being interpreted to suit the interests of big business, and consequently being accused of meaning ‘business-as-usual’. z Yet it remains a defensible radical concept, to which almost all nations on Earth subscribe. z The Millennium Development Goals were internationally agreed in 2000, and include the aim of the halving of extreme poverty by 2015, although the prospects of most of these goals being met are slender. z They show, however, that large international programmes to achieve international development (such as the suggested ‘Greenhouse Development Rights’) continue to be needed, as is individual support for them.

Learning objectives

z Through studying this section, you will be introduced to the concept of develop- ment, as well as to there being different conceptions and different models of what development comprises. z At the same time you will be introduced to the new area of applied ethics known as ‘development ethics’, and how it originated. z You will be enabled to grasp what Harry Truman meant by ‘development’, and why his stance was open to criticism, without the core notion of development needing to be discarded. z You will be enabled to understand Peter Singer’s Famine Relief Argument, and why we need to look deeper to understand malnutrition and under-development, and the changes required to avert or prevent them. z You will be introduced to the capabilities approach to development, as introduced by Amartya Sen and developed by and David Crocker. z You will also be enabled to apply John Rawls’ contractarianism to the relations between rich and poor countries, and thus to reflect on what the rules of interna- tional relations would be like it they were fair. z You will also be enabled to understand the concept of sustainable development presented in the 1987 Brundtland Report, and how its global endorsement at the Rio Summit (1992) led to criticisms of its value. z You will also be able to grasp how it remains available as a radical source of criti- cism of existing development policies and international relations. z You will further be reminded of the UN Millennium Development Goals (2000), and of their continuing importance, despite the slender prospects of their being realized by the target date of 2015.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 7 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:1912:36:19 AMAM Applied Ethics

Essay title and reading How is the idea of sustainable development best interpreted? OR Present and discuss criticisms of sustainable development. Attfield, Robin, The Ethics of the Global Environment, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, and West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1999, chapter 6. —, Environmental Ethics: An Overview for the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge: Polity and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003, chapter 5. Beckerman, Wilfred, ‘Sustainable Development: Is It a Useful Concept’, Environmental Values, 3, 1994, pp. 191–209. —, ‘How Would You Like Your ‘Sustainability’, Sir? Weak or Strong? A Reply to My Critics’, Environmental Values, 4, 1995, pp. 169–79. Daly, Herman, ‘On Wilfred Beckerman’s Critique of Sustainable Development’, Environmental Values, 4, 1995, pp. 49–55. Jacobs, Michael, ‘Sustainable Development, Capital Substitution and Economic Humility: A Response to Beckerman’, Environmental Values, 4, 1995, pp. 57–68. Pearce, David, Anil Markandya and Edward B. Barbier, Blueprint for a Green Economy, 1989, London: Earthscan, chapter 2 and Annex 1. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, 1987, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, chapter 2: (URL: http://un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm).

Exercises

1. Imagine that you and others are going to have to live in the same world, but do not know in which countries any of you will be born and brought up (whether in a rich country like Switzerland or in a poor country like Malawi or a country combining affluence and poverty like China). What rules would you choose for international trade, international aid and for the prevention of malnutrition and under-development? 2. Wilfred Beckerman divides the sustainability of sustainable development into sustain- ability of weak and strong sorts, depending on whether they allow artificial resources to be substituted for natural ones (weak sustainability) or not (strong sustainability). He goes on to claim that weak sustainability is no different in policy terms from the policies supported by conventional cost-benefit analysis, and thus redundant, and that strong sustainability could preserve natural species such as species of bee- tles rather than sacrifice them, even to save human lives, and is thus immoral. How should we respond to his critique? (The above reading list may help here.) 5. Environmental ethics: summary

z Environmental ethics is the study of the ethics of human interactions with the natural world and natural systems, the branch of ethics concerned with practical issues and matters of principle arising from such transactions.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 8 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:1912:36:19 AMAM Applied Ethics

z Environmental ethics emerged as an academic subject or discipline in a cluster of writings of the early 1970s. z Most of these writings advocated moving from anthropocentrism (an approach which accords moral standing to human interests alone) to some form of non- anthropocentric approach which recognizes the moral standing of non-human creatures. z Some favoured ecocentrism, the normative stance that holds that species and eco- systems have a good independent of that of their component members, and as such carry moral standing and that their attaining this good has intrinsic value. z Other environmental responded by defending anthropocentrism, holding that human judgements inevitably reflect human interests alone. But this is a fal- lacy; humans are free to heed other interests, and frequently do so. z Biocentrism holds, cogently, that all living creatures have a good of their own, and have moral standing accordingly, and that their flourishing or attaining their good is intrinsically valuable. Ecosystems, it holds, are valuable because of the creatures that depend on them. z Among normative theories, consequentialist versions of biocentrism are better grounded than deontological or -ethical ones, and all are more coherent than contractarian ones. z Causes of environmental problems include both poverty and high technology, whether in its capitalist or its communist manifestations. z The theory that Judaism and Christianity underlie the problems through their alleged anthropocentrism and condonement of environmental heedlessness (deriving from Lynn White) is inaccurate and misplaced. z Related important and well-justified environmental policies include sustainable development (involving strong rather than weak sustainability), pres- ervation and adaptation and mitigation. z Climate change mitigation is a responsibility for individuals, households, corpora- tions and governments. A global agreement would best be based on Contraction and Convergence, as proposed by Aubrey Meyer.

Learning objectives

z Through studying this section you will be enabled to define and identify ecological problems, and grasp the role and scope of environmental ethics. z You will also discover why most of the early environmental ethicists advocated moving away from anthropocentrism to a more inclusive approach. z You will learn what the stance of ecocentrism involves, and why some favour it while others do not. z You will discover why others advocated a return to anthropocentrism, and be ena- bled to raise critical questions about their arguments.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 9 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:2012:36:20 AMAM Applied Ethics

z You will further discover what the stance of biocentrism involves, together with its merits, and what differentiates it from anthropocentrism and from ecocentrism. z You will be able to compare attempts to apply to environmental ethics versions of contractarianism, deontology, and , and to consider possibilities for combining each of these with biocentrism. z You will be enabled to consider a range of theories about the cause or causes of ecological problems, and to recognize that some correlate with poverty, while oth- ers correlate with high technology and affluence. z You will be in a position to reflect on the kind of environmental policies that are needed, including sustainable development, biodiversity preservation, climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. z You will be in a position to reflect on the responsibilities of individuals, households, corporations and governments with regard to the environment. z You will be enabled to consider the proposal of Aubrey Meyer that the basis of a global agreement on climate change mitigation should be Contraction and Convergence.

Essay titles and reading Is anthropocentrism defensible? Attfield, Robin, The Ethics of Environmental Concern, 2nd edn, Athens, GA and London: University of Georgia Press, 1991, pp. 140–65. Grey, William, ‘Anthropocentrism and ’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71, 1993, pp. 463–75. Hayward, Tim, ‘Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem’, Environmental Values, 6, 1997, 49–63. Katz, Eric and Lauren Oechsli, ‘Moving Beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development and the Amazon’, Environmental Ethics, 15, 1993, pp. 49–59. Midgley, Mary, ‘The End of Anthropocentrism?’, in Robin Attfield and Andrew Belsey (eds), Philosophy and the Natural Environment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 103–12. Norton, Bryan, ‘Why I am Not a Nonanthropocentrist: Callicott and the Failure of Monistic Inherentism’, Environmental Ethics, 17, 1995, pp. 341–58.

How far is the Judaeo-Christian belief in humanity’s dominion over nature responsible for ecological problems? Attfield, Robin, ‘Christian Attitudes to Nature’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 44, 1983, pp. 369–86. —, The Ethics of Environmental Concern, 2nd edn, Athens, GA and London, 1991, chapters 2 and 3. —, The Ethics of the Global Environment, Edinburgh U.P., (1999), chapter 3. —, ‘Social History, Religion and Technology: An Interdisciplinary Investigation into White’s “Roots” ’, Environmental Ethics, 31.1, 2009, pp. 31–50. Moncrief, Lewis W., ‘The Cultural Basis of Our Environmental Crisis’, Science, 170, pp. 508–12; also in David and Eileen Spring (eds), Ecology and Religion in History, London: Harper & Row, 1974, pp. 76–90.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 1010 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:2012:36:20 AMAM Applied Ethics

Palmer, Clare, ‘: A Case Study in Environmental Ethics’, in J. Ball, M. Goodhall, C. Palmer and J. Reader (eds), The Earth Beneath, SPCK: London, 1992, pp. 67–86. Passmore, John, Man’s Responsibility for Nature, London: Duckworth, 1974, chapters 1 and 2. White, Lynn, Jr., ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’, Science, 155, 1967, pp. 1203–7; reprinted in Barr, John (ed.), The Environmental Handbook, London: Ballantine, 1971, pp. 3–16; online at: http://www.bemidjistate.edu/peoplenv/lynnwhite.htm.

Explain and appraise Contraction and Convergence as a basis for an interna- tional agreement on global warming. Baer, Paul, Tom Athanasiou and Sivan Kartha, The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World: The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework, EcoEquity, 2007: www.ecoequity.org/docs/ TheGDRsFramework.pdf. Lomborg, Björn, The Sceptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Meyer, Aubrey, Contraction & Convergence, The Global Solution to Climate Change, Schumacher Briefing no. 5, Totnes, Devon: Green Books, 2005. Monbiot, George, Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, London: Penguin Books, 2007. Singer, Peter, One World: The Ethics of , New Haven, CT and London: Press, 2002. 6. Ethics of war: summary

z In this section, the issue is first considered of whether ethics is applicable to war- fare at all, and it is argued that the answer to this question is affirmative. z In considering the issue of whether going to war is ever justified, we consider Jan Narveson’s claim that pacifism is incoherent, but it is rejected. z Pacifism, however, is held unable to cope with the principle of Negative Responsibility, by which agents are responsible for the impacts of their abstentions as well as of their actions. z Catholic ethical teaching about the just war (conditions in which going to war would be justified) is next considered, in the forms of the teaching of and the updated version of Joseph C. McKenna. z The requirement of a declaration of war by a legitimate sovereign needs modifica- tion to allow for the possibility that sometimes a civil war or a revolution might be justified. z Most of McKenna’s conditions (such as proportionality and last resort) are found susceptible of a consequentialist defence, or again of a Kantian one. z The requirement that the measures adopted be moral ones turns out to involve these measures being proportionate to the to be attained or the evils the war is to avert, and discrimination being shown between combatants and non-combatants. z Individual military personnel can be held responsible for their actions in warfare, and are not to be exculpated by appealing to ‘superior orders’.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 1111 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:2012:36:20 AMAM Applied Ethics

z The various Geneva Conventions specify kinds of conduct agreed to be unallow- able in time of war, and form part of the law of war. z The training of military staff should clarify these ethical expectations. z Any use of nuclear weapons (including nuclear retaliation) would be both dispro- portionate to any goods to be attained and also involve indiscriminate violence against non-combatants, and would therefore be morally wrong. z Nuclear deterrence can be argued to be wrong on the deontological basis that it is wrong to intend to do what it is wrong actually to do (i.e. use nuclear weapons), but some consequentialists hold that if such deterrence prevents war, then the readiness to use nuclear weapons that it involves is justified. z Other consequentialists argue that the risks of nuclear escalation and of nuclear proliferation mean that nuclear deterrence, at least on the part of the UK, is unjus- tified. Implications for other powers are also drawn.

Learning objectives

z Through studying this section, you will be enabled (inter alia) to form a view about whether ethics is applicable to warfare. z You will also be able to form a view about whether going to war is sometimes justified, or, as pacifists hold, never. z You will be in a position to explain the main themes and principles of the ‘just war’ tradition. z You will be able to consider whether the requirement of a declaration of war by a legitimate sovereign should be modified to recognize the possibility that a civil war or a revolution might in some cases be justified. z You will be able to explain how most of the themes and principles of the just war tradition can be underpinned by consequentialism. z You will be able to grasp what is meant by the principles of the means adopted in prosecuting a war being proportionate and involving discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. z You will be able to form a view about the individual responsibility for their actions of combatants in war, and its implications, as well as the relevance of the Geneva Conventions to such actions. z You will also be able to form a view about the grounds for observance of the prin- ciple of non-combatant immunity. z You will additionally be able to form a view about the ethics of the use of nuclear weapons. z You will understand the deontological argument of Anthony Kenny against nuclear deterrence, and criticisms of this argument. z You will further be able to appraise the consequentialist argument of Jeff McMahan against nuclear deterrence on the part of the UK, and to consider its implications for nuclear deterrence on the part of other powers.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 1212 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:2012:36:20 AMAM Applied Ethics

Essay title and reading Which ethical principles are relevant to nuclear deterrence, and what is their bearing? Blake, Nigel and Kay Pole (eds), Dangers of Deterrence, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983. Goodwin, Geoffrey (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence, London and Canberra: Croom Helm, 1982. Hare, J. E. and Carey B. Joynt, Ethics and International Affairs, London: Macmillan, 1982. Kenny, Anthony, The Logic of Deterrence, London: Firethorn Press, 1985. McMahan, Jeff, British Nuclear Weapons, For and Against, London: Junction Books, 1981. Paskins, Barrie and Michael Dockrill, The Ethics of War, London: Duckworth, 1979. Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, New York: Basic Books, 1977.

Is the principle of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants in situations of war defensible, either on a consequentialist or on some other basis? Glover, J., Causing Death and Saving Lives, London: Penguin, 1977. Hare, J. E. and C. B. Joynt, Ethics and International Affairs, London: Macmillan, 1982. Lichtenberg, Judith, ‘War, Innocence and the Doctrine of Double Effect’, Philosophical Studies, 74, 1994, pp. 347–68. Mavrodes, George I., ‘Conventions and the of War’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 4.2, 1975, pp. 117–31. Paskins, Barrie and Michael Dockrill, The Ethics of War, London: Duckworth, 1979. Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, New York: Basic Books, 1977.

http://philosophy.attfield.continuumbooks.com © Robin Attfield (2012) Ethics London: Continuum Books

004_APPLIED4_APPLIED EETHICSTHICS WWEBSITE.inddEBSITE.indd 1313 11/14/2012/14/2012 12:36:2012:36:20 AMAM