Midterm Test: Ethics of War and Peace Answers

Part 1. Multiple choice. Select the most appropriate response. Avoid scantron erasures by working first on this test, then transferring your answers to the scantron.

1. Sullivan (“This IS a Religious War”) writes shortly after 911 that the war is fundamentally between A. Muslims on one side and Christians and Jews on the other. B. Fundamentalists of all kinds versus those who believe in modern ideas of freedom. C. Governments that justify any of their actions based on religious principles versus governments that practice a strict separation between religion and state. D. Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s particular union of Shite and Sunni principles under the banner of “the new Califate” versus nations that believe in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. E. All genuine religious believers and those like members of Al Qaeda who are “phenomenological atheists” because they do not experience the message of any authentic God. 2. The “realism” that Walzer opposes in the first chapter claims that A. We must accept the current system of nation-states. B. Human beings are not angels; war and violence are a part of human nature. C. No moral standards can be applied to issues of war. D. The only correct moral position is an opposition to all wars. E. Aggression, violence, and competition have been valuable for human progress. 3. Underlying the idea of the legalist paradigm is A. a system of rules for the conduct of war B. the idea that no human being can flourish outside of a nation. C. our identity as human beings, rather than as citizens of a country, is what is most important. D. a moral commitment to the idea of treating all other human beings with respect. E. the existence of independent states which have rights that are violated by acts of aggression. 4. Walzer claims that the rights of states rest on the consent of its members. For him this means that A. to be legitimate, a state needs to be a democracy. B. a preemptive war is never justified. C. race and ethnicity are the basis of national loyalty. D. the right of states to territorial integrity is based on the right of property. E. None of the above. 2

5. According to Walzer, when might it be legitimate for a state to go to war before it is attacked? A. It is legitimate if there is a sufficient threat from another nation and not attacking first would greatly magnify the risk a country would face. B. It is never legitimate because this is an unlawful act of aggression. C. It is legitimate only if an attack from another country is just about to happen (imminent). D. It is legitimate when a nation has clear evidence that the other country is hostile and could eventually become a threat if not attacked now. E. It is legitimate if and only if the country is a democracy facing a challenge from a non- democratic country. 6. Walzer might favor helping a group secede from a larger nation-state if that group A. was seeking a democratic form of government B. was fundamentally peaceful C. represented a genuine national community (e.g., Poles). D. expressed a clear political or economic philosophy (e.g., socialism or capitalism) distinct from that of the government in the nation-state at large. E. All of the above would be required. 7. Luban criticizes Walzer for A. wrongly granting a right of self-defense to illegitimate as well as legitimate governments. B. giving too much weight to the rights of the nation-state and not enough to universal human rights. C. distinguishing between the right of nations to help people overthrow a domestic dictator versus the right to help people overthrow a foreign dictator. D. All of the above. E. None of the above. 8. Which of the following is an important question which reveals an underlying difference between the position of Walzer and Luban? A. Do persons have human rights? B. Are there ever humanitarian disasters that justify one country interfering with the sovereignty of another country? C. Can people of a foreign culture understand another country well enough to judge whether there is a radical disjunction or break between the people and their government? D. Are there any moral truths that apply to all persons at all time? E. All of the above. 9. Based on Just and Unjust Wars and class discussion, which of the following best characterizes Walzer’s theoretical position in ethics? A. Utilitarianism. B. Moral rights but also some consideration of consequences. C. Defender of absolute rights without regard to consequences. D. As a work of practical ethics, Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars gives no indication of his theoretical position. E. Ethical relativism. 3

10. Hungary tried to win its independence from the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. Applying Walzer’s principles, why might it have been morally wrong for the United States to intervene to help the Hungarians? A. There was no common life that distinguished the Hungarians from other member nations of the Soviet Union. B. The Hungarian uprising was not democratic. C. The Hungarians were suffering from a domestic rather than a foreign tyranny. D. Citizens of the Soviet Union have a right to have their basic needs met, and victory for the Hungarians would have deprived them of resources they needed to stay alive. E. Intervention would have dangerously risked a nuclear war. 11. How bad do things have to be in a country before Walzer thinks another state is justified in interfering for purely humanitarian reasons? A. Intervention is justified if the state is not democratic. B. Intervention is justified if the state violates the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. C. Intervention is justified in cases of enslavement or massacre (including genocide). D. Intervention is justified only in cases of genuine genocide. E. Intervention is never justified because people get the state they deserve. 12. A state may intervene in another state’s civil war only A. to balance a prior intervention by another state. B. if one side in the civil war specifically asks for help. C. in cases of humanitarian disaster D. where a separate and distinct common life exists in the side that would be helped. E. where intervention would be in the long-term national interest of the intervening state. 13. According to Walzer a war that is originally just can become unjust and morally equivalent to aggression in which of the following instances? A. fighting is aiming at an unconditional surrender when a lesser goal would be more appropriate and can be achieved without continued fighting. B. when a majority of the people in a country no longer favor the war. C. when the world community judges that human rights violations are occurring because of the continuation of the war. D. when civilians are being put at risk through rape or indiscriminate bombings. E. All of the above. 14. According to Walzer the best way of describing what was wrong about the rape of the Italian women by Moroccan soldiers in 1943 is that those actions A. violated “the sacred, the image of God in man.” B. were not necessary for achieving the legitimate aims of the war. C. “shocked the conscience of mankind.” D. were acts of genocide. E. violated human rights. 4

15. The legalist paradigm includes the idea that an aggressor nation not only be resisted but also punished. According to Walzer, why might it be necessary to revise this idea and not inflict punishment that would otherwise be justified? A. Punishment might be inappropriate if the nation that was an aggressor expresses its apologies for the original aggression. B. Punishment might not be justified if it also harmed other nations that were not part of the original war. C. Punishment might not be justified if it conflicted with the aim of achieving a better state of peace after the war. D. War by its very nature is punishing (“war is hell”), so additional punishment is never justified. E. Just punishment is appropriately reserved for God (“judge not lest ye be judged”). 16. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Which best explains Walzer’s likely response to this (as discussed in class)? A. Whether the reason for the war itself is justified or not is a question independent of whether the methods used in the war are appropriate. B. What constitutes terrorism can be defined factually as a certain method of fighting in a war, and the definition does not incorporate any judgment about whether the method is morally justified or not. C. Indiscriminate killing to create fear is a method that may be used by people fighting for freedom or people opposed to freedom, and either way it is terrorism. D. All of the above E. None of the above. 17. How does Walzer distinguish between modern-day terrorists and earlier figures that were called terrorists at the time? A. Earlier so-called “terrorists” operated at a time when methods of modern communication had not developed, so their individual actions did not create widespread fear and panic the way modern terrorist actions do. B. The earlier figures called “terrorists” followed the war code and only targeted armed soldiers. C. Walzer distinguishes between the earlier so-called “terrorists,” who were fighting for a just cause, and modern terrorists, who are not fighting for a just cause. D. Earlier so-called “terrorists” followed a political code that limited killing to particular targets. E. Earlier so-called “terrorists” had cruder weapons that killed many fewer people. 18. Which of the following claims would Walzer agree to? A. Philosophically there are human rights that apply to all cultures. B. People have a right to revolt against an oppressive government. C. There may be governments that are illegitimate in relation to their own people but must be presumed to be legitimate internationally. D. Invasion of another country and violating its sovereignty may be an instance of a just war if the government of that country is engaging in massacre of its own people. E. All of the above. 5

19. What does Walzer mean by the “war convention”? A. Standards for the conduct of both wars of aggression and wars of defense. B. Standards for determining whether a war is a just war. C. Standards for determining the legitimate ends of war. D. Internationally agreed upon treaties and other specific understandings signed onto by members of the United Nations. E. Customary practices of war, whether they are morally justified or not. 20. Based on class discussion (and Walzer), the phrase “innocent civilians” refers most appropriately to what group of people? A. Those who are morally on the right side of the war B. Those who are not actively involved in fighting and who are not officials of the government helping to plan the war. C. Those who are not armed and not in a position to threaten others with violence. D. “In war there are no innocent victims.” E. Only those who are committed to pacifism (total non-violence). 21. Which of the following, if any, would Walzer most clearly accept about the statement “war is hell”? A. War sets in motion activities that put people’s lives in danger and does so in a way that leads to unpredictable levels of violence. B. Once a war starts, it inevitably escalates in a process that leaves leaders without choice. C. The aims achieved in a war are never worth the price paid in lives and human suffering. D. All of the above. E. None of the above because Walzer completely opposes the idea that “war is hell.” 22. In chapter 1, Walzer quotes the famous “Meilian Dialogue” in Thucydides (460 BC-395 BC) where the Athenian generals tell the Melians “they that have odds of power exact as much as they can, and the weak yield to such conditions as they can get.” What is Walzer’s purpose in citing this possibly fictional (or embellished) account of events in the Peloponnesian War? A. To illustrate that this is the hellishness of war and the brutality of all warriors, respectful only of power and blind to any moral constraints. B. To emphasize that the end (Athenians killing all young men and enslaving women and children) is typical of war at that time and to show that we have indeed made great moral progress since then. C. A rare example and the exception to the usual situation where even the most immoral actors feel the need to lie and thereby show that they recognize the existence of generally accepted moral principles even in war. D. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the history of war. E. Democracy, for which the Athenians were famous, does not make leaders any more moral than non-democratic leaders when it comes to war. 6

23. What does Walzer mean by the “domestic analogy”? A. Foreign powers must not invade another country for humanitarian reasons if the oppression existing in that country is from a domestic rather than a foreign ruler. B. The relationship of the rulers of a country to its citizens is like the relationship of a parent to a child. C. The idea that for a foreign war to be just, it must be supported by the people at home. D. The naïve idea, criticized by Walzer, that a soldier in war should behave with the same gentleness as he/she would behave with members of his own family at home. E. None of the above. 24. What is Walzer’s view of making the goal of war the unconditional surrender of the enemy? A. If the war is a just war, this is an appropriate goal because it insures a better state of peace after the war by insuring that “the enemy will not attempt to continue the war by indirect means.” B. This is never an appropriate goal. C. This is an appropriate goal only when the activities of the enemy regime are a “standing affront to the conscience of mankind.” D. This is an appropriate goal if and only if continuing the war does not endanger the lives of innocent civilians. E. This is an appropriate goal only in a holy war where there is good reason to believe that “purification of humanity” is a divinely sanctioned objective. 25. To defend the statement “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” would require opposing which of Walzer’s principles? A. The independence of jus ad bellum (justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war). B. A legitimate state is one that defends the common life of its people. C. The distinction between soldiers and civilians. D. The idea that to a large extent “people get the state they deserve.” E. Moral realism is false. 26. Although they differ in many ways, (a) Western and Christian and (b) Islamic rules in war share the idea (according to Johnson) that A. those engaged in the act of prayer may not be targets during the time they are praying. B. making enemies into slaves is forbidden. C. there is a distinction between combatants and noncombatants. D. those who believe in God (whether Muslim, Christian, or Jewish) should be treated differently from atheists (unbelievers). E. All of the above. 7

27. In Johnson’s discussion of Islamic rules of war, the issue is raised about why women and young boys are not legitimate targets even if they are unbelievers, and one explanation is that they are not responsible for their beliefs. But an argument against this interpretation is that A. Islam actually holds women to be more responsible for their beliefs than men because women play a major role in nurturing children. B. whether one is a Muslim or an unbeliever plays no part in Islamic rules about who may or may not be killed in war. C. animals are unbelievers, but they are considered legitimate targets even though they are not responsible for their beliefs. D. elderly men are held responsible for their beliefs and yet they are not considered legitimate targets. E. carpenters and plumbers are exempt from attack as well, but they are held responsible for their beliefs. Part 2. Essay. Answer the following questions.

1. (8 points) Behavior toward noncombatants. The United States is trying to target armed enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan but may often kill unarmed and uninvolved civilians (including children) as part of the effort. Compare/contrast 4 possible standards for determining morally correct behavior toward civilians: (i) moral realism as explained in Walzer, chapter 1; (ii) Sidgwick’s utilitarian standard; (iii) the doctrine of double effect, and (iv) Walzer’s own position. As part of applying each standard indicate what is required of the American military and what behavior, if any, would be judged morally wrong. Moral realism claims that “all’s fair in…war” so there would be no moral judgments possible about US actions. Sidgwick’s utilitarian position would require that any action killing civilians be useful to the war effort and proportionate; that is, there must not be harm to civilians that is out of proportion to the amount of good it does for the US war effort. This is clearly different from moral realism in that it does impose moral standards on war conduct, but it would permit even intentional targeting of civilians if doing helped the war effort sufficiently, judged by utilitarian standards. In contrast, the doctrine of double effect would not permit any intentional targeting of civilians. It would, however, allow actions, subject to proportionality (Sidgwick’s standard) that killed civilians if the intent was to harm legitimate military targets and the death or harm to civilians was a secondary or “double effect,” what recently has been called “collateral damage.” Walzer’s own standard is still more stringent. He requires not only that Iraqi or Afghan civilians not be the intended target but that measures must be taken to mimimize harm to civilians, even if that requires that US soldiers take greater risks upon themselves. However, even Walzer would not require refraining from actions that would make the whole war effort impossible.

2. (4 points) In just one or two sentences, explain why the following often-heard statement is a misunderstanding of what it means to develop an ethics of war, certainly according to Walzer:

“Of course certain horrifying activities (e.g., intentionally bombing civilians or torturing people to gain information) are morally wrong, but sometimes in war there are extreme circumstances that make these actions necessary and appropriate.” [Don’t focus on these particular examples; focus on the general form of this line of thought.] 8

[Think carefully and write a first draft, then formulate a very concise answer—no more than two sentences—that gets to the core of the problem in this popular formulation. If you can, state the flawed assumption of the statement.]

To say that such horrifying actions are “morally wrong” seems to assume that morality must involve absolute rules, yet in saying that the same actions are “sometimes appropriate” suggests a a notion of non-absolute rules, which can be developed into a moral principle itself. Instead of assuming a certain action is absolutely morally wrong, the statement needs to present criteria for exactly when these “horrifying actions” are morally appropriate and when they are not.