Utilitarianism: The Use Of Military Force

Theodore Roosevelt profoundly stated, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck to crush him.” This is the main idea of preemptive warfare. Gray stated that pre-emptive warfare means to strike first in the face of an attack that is either already underway (2007). Simply stated, he exclaimed that it is “the option of shooting on suspicion” (p. 6). If a country is aware that another nation or group is going to attack them, the theory of preemptive war states that it is not only strategic, but also ethically moral, to attack the enemy before they attack you. Because the free will of humankind disrupts our world, we must ask this question: Is preemptive warfare morally justified? This topic will be analyzed by looking that four different ethical systems. First, we will be analyzing Utilitarianism and the Christian worldview, which suppose that preemptive warfare is morally justified. Second, we will examine Cultural Relativism and Kantian ethics, which are two systems that don’t fully support or negate that preemptive warfare is morally justified.

The second condition is that war must be declared by a proper authority, a representative of a nation; a king for example. Declaring was is a matter for governments, so neither you nor I can declare war. Some circumstances do arise when it is unclear if that authority is representing the people or themselves. For example, a dictator King who rules by fear does not represent his people, meaning that his declaration of war is questionable. For the military intervention to occur, a declaration from the government must be made.

So when is military forced justified? Some say military force is justified when there is an impending threat to one’s borders. Which to a point is understandable, If the situation can not be solved through negotiations then depending on the situation military force should be used as justifiable. IF a country is on the verge of being invaded, it’s military should have the right to use military force.

However this responsibility must be exercised only when the situation and U.S. capabilities enable a successful military intervention. Military action should be a measure of last resort and the standards for its use should be high. Those standards include multilateral action, logistical feasibility, domestic public support, and an actionable post-genocide plan for stability.

Being one of the world's most influential and powerful military forces can have its downfalls and its advantages. Being regarded as sort of the world's caretaker by always assisting nations through humanitarian needs no matter if they are allies or not is categorized as one of the downfalls, while having the authoritative power to separate itself from other nations as a military superpower is a perk. When possessing the powerful military America has, countless situations arise where the opportunity for the United States to flex their figurative muscles are presented. The driving force behind the debate of when United States force is justified is should the military be used for self-defense and the safety of our strong allies? Or should the United States use their powerful military’s precious resources like money, firearms and American personnel to defend the human rights and safety of nations around the world no matter the correlation with the U.S? The United States

The use of military force can be justified on any act of military use towards defense, threats, and to keep world peace. Which has happened in the past years and will happen later in the future. For example the Cold War, Vietnam, and Iraq these are, where our government used military force and justified it. These example show that military force can be justified during an act against our country, endangering world peace and terrorist attacks against our country. As well as any act of attack against us. Therefor military force can be justified in times of threats, defense, and most to keep world peace.

During military intervention, the human rights of non-combatants are placed in very high regard. However, there are no assurances that there will not be civilian casualties. The question remains what an acceptable level death or bodily harm is and when would it be considered morally or ethically acceptable during military intervention. According to Altman and Wellman, “If there is no other way to rescue far greater numbers of persons from death or grave bodily harm, then armed intervention might be permissible as a grim moral necessity. However, as in such grim circumstances, where a supreme humanitarian emergency exists, can intervention be morally permitted.” With that being said, they also argue that all targets should be legitimate military targets and that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure the safety and security of non-combatants. (Altman and Wellman 2008,

Can a nation justify using military force? A very respected English leader Winston Churchill once told the people of England that, “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be we shall fight on the beaches we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” In contraction, John F. Kennedy uttered, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” Over the course of history, millions of people were murdered for the sake of land, resources, and money. In comparison, war been fought to save lives and for self-defense. In some cases, war can be justified.

When is military force justified We know that the military exists to keep us safe. The government uses the military for lots of different reasons . But when is the right time to use it? When is the involvement of military needed?

Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions (Shaw & Barry, 62).

Briefly, utilitarianism holds that the consequences of an action determine its moral worth and that the relative balance of happiness

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.

The use of military force is a valid customary international law norm and it is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Nevertheless, the use of force is only authorised if it falls under one of two categories: self-defence (article 41 of the United Nations Charter), or Security Council authorisation. To justify a resort to pre-emptive war, a state must give reasonable proof that the action is necessary to the vital national security interests of the state, and that the act of aggression in self-defence is proportional, according to Charter principles. The threat imposed by an aggressor must be proven to be clear and imminent, direct, critical to the state