LESLIE V.

ADOLFO BS CHE 4

ETHICS MWF 4:30-5:30 pm

FEB 13, 2012 JUVY S. REYES

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD)

Summary The argument centralizes on different philosophical views on waging war, and consequently on the use of the so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Let us start with the two opposing notions, namely, Pacifism and Militarism. Pacifism is a philosophy against the use of violence to settle conflicts. A pacifist would propose that waging war is always wrong. However, in the point of view of those who support Militarism, waging war is not necessarily wrong. Militarism believes that there is a good point and certain advantages in waging war. An interesting perspective that stands between these two philosophical views is the Just War Theory (JWT). JWT stands in the idea that engaging in war can be justified even though war, is in itself, sinful. The said theory presents two sets of principles that must be met in order for the war to be considered just. One of these, the principle of the immunity of non-combatants, appears to be a problem since there is a difficulty in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. In this regard, JWT applies the Double Effect Principle in which it is assumed that the intention of an act is of main importance rather than its consequences. It is in this concept that gives rise to the argument by consequentialists. A consequentialist would argue that the immorality of an act is fully determined by its consequences. The dispute concerning WMD revolves around these two philosophical views. From the previous paragraph, it is clear that JWT would have a problem with WMD since the principle would prefer the use of weapons which lessen the probability of harming innocent victims rather than that which increases it. Consequentialists, on the other hand, would prefer the use of WMD if they appear to have better consequences. According to Graham Gordon, consequentialism ignores two dimensions, namely, the moral status and the nature of action. Morals status recognizes that in terms of the harm inflicted by the use of WMD (for example), the innocence of those who suffer it is what matters MORE, rather than just the extent of the said suffering. The article also tackled about deterrence. Deterrence is defined as prevention, usually by frightening with force, in this case, with the use of WMD. It can be deduced, then, that the Just War Theory is not in favor of this, based on what was discussed in the previous paragraph. JWT follows the general moral principle - it is always wrong to threaten to do what it would be wrong to do, since this suggests that threatening to do something morally wrong would imply that you intend to do it. This is where the concept of conditional threat comes in. Conditional threat considers that ones intention while making the threat does not necessarily hold the same should the threat fail, since the two situations are subjected to different circumstances. It proposes that if the threat fails, ones intentions given these different circumstances can also change, and so, threatening to use WMD doesnt necessarily mean it would be done once the other party fails the threat. However, this doesnt guarantee us that these weapons of mass destruction (e.g. Nuclear Weapons) will not be used by the higher powers who possess them. Hence, in the aim of defending oneself, defense strategists proposed a policy of Mutually

Assured Destruction (MAD). As terrifying as it sounds, this strategy proposes that using one sides nuclear weapons would automatically trigger a conflict in which no one can win. According to Graham Gordon in his book Ethics and International Relations, MAD believes that it is rational to prefer to run a very great danger which there is little likelihood to happening, to a much lesser anger which is very likely to happen. Reaction I was pretty excited the moment I knew that our topic would be about Weapons of Mass Destruction, it sounded pretty cool. My mind immediately wandered to the World War scenes where there were guns firing everywhere, bombs blowing up every city, aircrafts and battleship exchanging all sorts of explosives . . . it was thrilling, just like in the movies. However, after I read the article, I realized I havent given the idea of war that much thought. I didnt care about the causes, the effect and all other consequences of engaging in a war. And who could blame me, I came from a generation where all these gunfights, bombings and all sorts of mass annihilation are just scenes in a movie or in a video game, in other words, it is just fiction as far as Im concerned. The article has provided me with answers to questions I have never bothered to ask or even researched about. Yes, questions like if America was so powerful, why doesnt it just declare war with other countries that pose as a threat to their power and resources; or if Japan has fully developed and has become more powerful, why doesnt it take revenge to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing that happened many years ago? For me, waging war doesnt do anyone any good. Its just a waste display of power at the expense of innocent peoples lives. I am more of a pacifist than a militarist. Why resort to a painful and detrimental battle and risk other innocent peoples lives when there is a nonviolent and peaceful way of solving these problems? I personally dont even consider waging war as a solution to any problem. However, I acknowledge that in reality, war is something that is of great concern of all countries over the whole globe. As dreadful as it may sound, many countries have even prepared for this and invented weapons and vessels far more destructive than the ones used in the previous wars. The most threatening of these weapons are those considered as the weapons of mass destruction, such as the nuclear bombs, which serve to destroy as many lives and properties possible. The Just War Theory, which holds that declaring a war can be justified, even has a problem with the emergence of the WMD. Of course! How could anyone justify the invention and intent usage of weapons that have the ability to annihilate a whole community of at least 200 thousand civilians in just one blow? Many principles have been proposed to justify the deterrence using the WMD; yet, only one emerged as something worth exploring the concept of a conditional threat. This concept as discussed previously does not guarantee anyone that the threats of using WMD will never be carried out. However, this is could be a somewhat tolerable line of defense for considering nuclear deterrence as a morally acceptable act. Another troubling concept is that of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). At first, it does seem crazy that the only way to prevent powerful countries from using WMD is the destruction of the whole world. Nevertheless, we should also recognize the fact that these nuclear weapons have already been invented. MAD, for the mean time, seems to be good enough to prevent the outbreak of these nuclear weapons . . . or maybe, its just a matter of time.
Reference: Graham Gordon. Ethics and International Relations.2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing. Ch. 4, pp. 77-96.