I wrote in a previous post about my enrolment in an online course by World Beyond War and why I believe war can be ended. Having studied the content from week two I shall now commentate on the reasons why war is immoral.
To start I shall quote the Cambridge Dictionary definition of immoral: “Morally wrong, or outside society’s standards of acceptable, honest and moral behaviour”. Frequently actions classed as unacceptable in everyday, peacetime life are judged differently in the name of war; this post will explore this further.
Perhaps the reason why people judge things differently is because they feel that war is horrible but necessary; however if war endangers people rather than protecting them that argument fails. The war in Iraq has been fought in the name of protecting citizens freedoms but has destabilized Iraq internally, created regional tensions and generated widespread resentment for the United States. As a result the threat of future generations in Iraq and the Middle East being exposed to an environment conducive for extremism (such as that taken advantage of by ISIS) has arguably increased terrorism. This is the opposite result of the stated one of making the United States safer. Other countries (Spain and the United Kingdom come to mind) have also been targeted by terrorist groups for supporting military interventions in the Middle East.
The argument is also made that war is necessary because the ‘evil’ is threatening your life. However the threat is often not realistic as the opposition do not have the capacity or intention to invade, occupy the country and restrict people’s freedoms. Furthermore when wars are in response to a threat, often the reaction is disproportionate; taking over a country’s resources and occupying its cities can be judged as an inappropriate reaction to the original, perceived threat. David Swanson, Director of World Beyond War states “Sometimes we’re told that evil people are going to blow us up because they hate our freedoms. But then, that would still mean we were fighting a war for survival, not for freedom—if there were any truth to this absurd propaganda, which there is not”. Lives of citizens may be threatened by the use of a nuclear or chemical weapon but does this justify a military occupation affecting hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
As Swanson explains in the course material there are no upsides to war; draining resources and causing more intense damage than we are led to believe. In our everyday lives murder is rightly seen as an unacceptable act, yet is viewed to be acceptable in war where it takes place on a large scale. Our moral thinking has been overcome by by a false, romanticised version of war where we permit murder without hardly a second thought.
Perhaps war is considered to be acceptable because of the belief that it is only the ‘evil’ that suffers in war – yet that is not the case. The question is posed, what if you learned that most of the people killed by U.S. drones are civilians? There is also the impact (not often reported) on the civilians who have been traumatised, rendered homeless, injured or had their homes damaged. The negative impact of war also goes beyond direct conflict: The top killer of members of US military in some recent years has been suicide and there is great damage caused by the psychological impact of war. Post traumatic stress disorder impacts not only on the combatants but their relationships with their families and friends. Studies have also shown racial hatred has risen during and following wars. Xenophobia, bigotry and racism are needed for the propaganda of wars and impacts on the social cohesion of communities at home and abroad.
There are numerous negative effects of war which is marketed under the banner of freedom; yet, bewilderingly, freedoms are lost in war in the name of the war. Loss of privacy, rations, curfews, travel restrictions, increased government secrecy and conscription (the compulsory enrolment of people into military service) demonstrates that war erodes freedom.
Furthermore David Swanson articulates: “The idea that incredible suffering and evil actions can be justified as means for noble and desirable ends needs to be reconsidered”; instead, he contends, the heroism which is associated with violence needs to be redefined as being strong enough to stand up for morality – peace and no war. This is a difficult feat as it requires a contrary argument to the glorification of war seen in movies such as the recent box office hit ‘1917’. This new recognition of morality is required as an enduring peace will not come about by war, as David Icke has said “you don’t fight for peace, you peace for peace”.
An additional important point is made that is a focus for World Beyond War: the number one way in which war kills is by taking funding away from life-saving activities. If the United States had taken five trillion dollars, and—instead of spending it destroying Iraq—had chosen to do good with it, at home or abroad, just imagine the possibilities. The course material offers the question: ‘The United Nations thinks $30 billion a year would end world hunger. For $5 trillion, why not end world hunger for 167 years?’. The lives not saved are even more than the lives taken away by war spending. This information combined with the work of the Global Peace Index (which measures the economic value of peace) could solve many of the world’ s problems. It is hoped that if governments became aware of this information, there would be different outcomes instead of war.
Overall, war is a series of actions and behaviours that have devastating and catastrophic consequences. By supporting wars and promoting the heroic ideals of war we are serving to encourage the murder of civilians, injuries and damage to people’s homes – actions we would usually consider as immoral and unacceptable. By looking objectively at the reasons we are told to justify war we can see that the arguments do not hold weight. Our society prides itself on being fair and just yet our principles of right and wrong are neglected when it comes to war. An example of how out of touch with morality is how some legal professors will argue that drone kills are murder if not “in a war” but fine if “in a war”? “War is a crime not because of who commits it but because of what it is” (Swanson). Once enough people become aware of this, support for the use of war as a method to resolve conflict will greatly diminish. When this happens a world beyond war will become more possible.
More information about World Beyond War can be found on their website worldbeyondwar.org.
Recent Comments