Cosmopolitanism and the Moral Circle. Is Modern Warfare Justified?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Damage and ruins
The climate of international relations
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Enlightenment philosophers such as Kant and Bentham though they differed much in their epistemology and mindsets, opposed war and violence between states as inappropriate means for achieving lasting peace. Kant for instance listed several stipulations that were in his view necessary for creating lasting peace. They included the creation of world government formed by constitutional republics (Dictionary and Resource Guide, 2007). Kant opposed democratic regime thinking that “…democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism because it establishes an executive power in which “all” decide for or even against one who does not agree” (Kant, 2003).

Damage and ruins

By the same token, Jeremy Bentham thought that the arm conflicts in international relations produce for damage and ruins than positive effects and thus according to his theory of Utility considered them as irrational. He thought that ‘all war is in its essence ruinous; yet the great employments of government are to treasure up occasions of war and to put fetters upon trade’ (Dictionary and Resource Guide, 2007).

He even outlined a comprehensive layout of world peace and was a strong advocate for protecting human rights on the international level. According to these philosophers, the use of force at the international level is only affordable when there is a threat to state sovereignty from the aggressive actors of international relations.

Hobbes as representative of New European philosophy was a proponent of natural human rights and claimed that they are inalienable and thus it is necessary to develop international human rights (Dictionary and Resource Guide, 2007). The laws of war and peace (De Jure Belli ac Pacis) by the Dutch thinker Hugo Grotius is a monumental work. For Hobbes and Grotius, and for the world they inhabited, the chief problem was war. Hence the title of Grotius’s book, which deals much more with war than with peace. War is what is to be avoided. Perhaps it is unsurprising that Hobbes’s description of the condition of people without government is a description of a condition of war, of the war of all against all. It is a fearful state; it is a condition in which, infamously, life is nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 1994).

The climate of international relations

The contemporary climate of international relations poses new problems to understanding Kant and Bentham’s arguments. International terrorism and the development of aggressive states make utilization of power inevitable. Wars are so widespread that is better to say that they are more common than peace. It is important to note that the legitimacy of war depends on many factors. It can be said that if one state is attacked by another the use of force is morally grounded and I agree with the abovementioned philosopher in this relation. But unfortunately, in modern international relations, some superpowers use ideology and propaganda to legitimize the permanent state of war such as humanitarian intervention, human rights issues, rogue states, and other justifications for using force. Thus, it should be noted that the morality of force use and its legitimacy can be justified only when the state act following international law and international standards of conduct in which norms of statehood morality are embedded. The interrelation between state and individual morality is very difficult and one cannot be reduced to another thus we should be very careful in designating some actions of international actors as moral or immoral. It should be therefore remembered that the notion of guilt applicable to combatants in war is not the same as that applicable to a criminal gang. The latter is a voluntary association of individuals who have conspired to commit a crime; the former is the designated military representatives of their political community, connected to it by innocent bonds of birth or by civil membership.

Conclusion

Keeping in view philosophical theories and thoughts of philosophers it can be concluded that in this modern world war cannot be justified in any circumstances but for self-defense. While deciding the circumstances necessary for self-defense, it cannot be left to one person or one country. It must be decided by bodies like United Nations.

References

Hobbes, Thomas. The Elements of law Natural and Politic. Edited with an introduction by JCA Gaskin.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994

Kant, Immanuel. To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Translated by Ted Humphrey. London: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003.

Simpson, David. One World: Globalization and the Idea of Global Community in History and Literature: Dictionary and Resource Guide. DePaul University: Center for Distance Education, 2007.

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 180—2. Ed. P. Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1988.

Click Here To Order Now!

Cosmopolitanism and the Moral Circle. Is Modern Warfare Justified?

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)