Global Violence: Ethical and Political Issues (Global Ethics)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
What does it mean to say that a particular war is just or unjust, that terrorism is always wrong, or that torture can sometimes be morally justified? What are the moral bases for the possession or use of nuclear weapons, intervening in other countries’ civil wars, or being a bystander to genocide? Such questions take us to the heart of what is morally right and wrong behaviour in our world.
Global Violence: Ethical and Political Issues
provides readers with the analytical tools to better understand the suppositions that underlie the debates about such questions, as well as advances its own reasoned and informed ethical analyses of these topics. The book engages different normative approaches from the fields of ethics, political theory, and international relations and uses them to examine a set of case studies on the subjects of inter-state and civil war, nuclear weapons, terrorism, torture and genocide.
use of torture at 137–138, 139 ballistic missile defense system (NMD) 115, 116, 117 The Battle of Algiers 128 Bellamy, Alex: element of fear in terrorism 124; international norms 172; and justifications for terrorism 128; principle of non-combatant immunity 129; September 11 attacks 136; and use of torture 133 belligerency status 78, 93 Bentham, Jeremy 16, 37–38, 40, 130–131 bin Laden, Osama 11, 124, 129, 134–141 black sites 137–138, 139 Bosnia 122, 123, 145, 155, 159 Britain: American
the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian), and it was especially important as the moral basis for decolonization after World War II. While the pursuit of self-determination did not always lead to wars of national liberation during the decolonization period, in cases where such wars did erupt, at least the side rebelling considered the war to be one of national liberation: the First Indochina War (1946–1954), the Vietnam War (1959–1975), and the Algerian War (1954–1962) are all examples of this. There
was entirely unjustified, since even if Iraq obtained nuclear weapons it would be extremely unlikely to ever use them. Even from a highly liberal-cosmopolitan perspective, supporters of the invasion dramatically overestimated the likelihood of Iraq ever obtaining nuclear weapons and underestimated the costs associated with preventing it from ever doing so. And given the realities today in Iraq, it is reasonable to conclude that the invasion did not necessarily achieve “nuclear prevention.” The
capacity.12 While this definition, as legal definitions go, is fairly precise in that it requires that the acts in question be instigated by people in an “official” capacity, the essence of torture is that it deliberately inflicts severe pain and suffering upon individuals, without any regard to their guilt or innocence, either as punishment or to extract information or a confession to a crime. While the “official” nature of the act is important, as it would then implicate a state and its
well as the meaningfulness of membership in such communities. For instance, when considering the use of torture, does it matter whether the person being tortured is a member of one’s own community, a different political community, or even an “unjust” political community? Should it matter whether the use of torture is intended to protect one’s own citizens, the global community as a whole, or another country’s citizens who may not share one’s own set of values? In this sense, while a central theme