Three Arguments Concerning The Morality Of War Richard A. Wasserstrom

Three Arguments Concerning The Morality Of War Richard A. Wasserstrom

The morality of war has been a perennial subject of philosophical debate, ethics, and political discourse throughout history. With the advent of modern warfare, nuclear weapons, and asymmetric conflicts, questions about when it is justified to go to war, how wars should be conducted, and whether war can ever be morally justified have gained unprecedented importance. Among the many scholars who have contributed to this complex discussion, Richard A. Wasserstrom stands out for his insightful analysis of the ethical considerations surrounding war. His work critically examines the moral principles that underpin justifications for war and the moral responsibilities of combatants and states.

This article delves into Wasserstrom’s three central arguments concerning the morality of war, exploring his perspectives on just war theory, the moral limits of warfare, and the responsibilities of individuals and nations in conflict. By understanding these arguments, readers can better grasp the philosophical underpinnings of contemporary debates on war ethics and the ongoing quest for a moral framework that guides justifiable warfare.

Context and Significance of Wasserstrom’s Arguments

Richard A. Wasserstrom’s contributions to the philosophy of war are particularly relevant in a world where conflicts are increasingly complex and morally ambiguous. His arguments challenge simplistic notions of victory, national interest, and self-defense, urging a nuanced analysis of the ethical dimensions of warfare. His insights are instrumental for policymakers, military leaders, and citizens alike, as they navigate the moral landscape of war and peace.

In essence, Wasserstrom’s work emphasizes that war is not merely a political or strategic act but a profound moral decision that involves considerations of justice, morality, and human rights. His three core arguments serve as a foundation for evaluating whether war can ever be morally justified and under what circumstances.

First Argument: The Conditions for Just War

Overview of Just War Theory

Wasserstrom’s first argument is rooted in the principles of Just War Theory, a doctrine that seeks to determine when it is morally permissible to engage in war and how war should be conducted ethically. The core principles typically include:

• Just Cause: War must be fought for a morally justified reason, such as self-defense or protecting innocent lives.
• Legitimate Authority: Only duly authorized entities (like governments) can declare war.
• Right Intention: The primary aim must be to achieve a just cause, not for revenge or conquest.
• Probability of Success: War should only be waged if there is a reasonable chance of success.
• Last Resort: All non-violent options must have been exhausted before resorting to war.
• Proportionality: The benefits of war must outweigh the harms caused.

Wasserstrom emphasizes that adherence to these conditions is essential for a war to be morally justified.

Critical Analysis of Conditions

Wasserstrom argues that these conditions serve as moral safeguards, preventing unnecessary or unjustified conflicts. He contends that:

• Violating the principle of just cause undermines the moral integrity of war.
• The legitimate authority criterion ensures that wars are not declared by rogue actors or insurgents.
• Right intention guards against wars motivated by greed, hatred, or political power.
• Respecting proportionality minimizes unnecessary suffering.

He warns, however, that in practice, these criteria are often difficult to evaluate, and states may manipulate or distort them to justify aggressive actions. Therefore, moral vigilance and international oversight are crucial.

Second Argument: The Moral Limits of Warfare

Combatant Responsibilities and Moral Constraints

Wasserstrom’s second argument deals with the moral constraints on how wars are fought, emphasizing the responsibilities of soldiers and commanders to adhere to ethical standards. Key points include:

• Discrimination: Combatants must distinguish between military targets and non-combatants; intentionally targeting civilians is morally impermissible.
• Proportionality in Means: The methods used in warfare should not cause unnecessary suffering or destruction beyond what is justified by the military objective.
• Treatment of Prisoners and Non-Combatants: Ethical treatment of prisoners and civilians is a moral obligation, regardless of wartime exigencies.

He underscores that moral conduct during war is vital for maintaining human dignity and legitimacy of the conflict.

Challenges and Ethical Dilemmas

Wasserstrom recognizes that in the chaos of war, maintaining moral discipline is challenging. He discusses dilemmas such as:

• Collateral damage and civilian casualties.
• The use of new technologies, like drones and nuclear weapons, which complicate adherence to moral constraints.
• Situations where soldiers face orders that conflict with moral principles.

He advocates for strong moral training and clear rules of engagement to ensure that combatants uphold ethical standards, reinforcing that the morality of war extends beyond its initiation to its conduct.

Third Argument: Moral Responsibility and Post-War Justice

Responsibility of Individuals and States

Wasserstrom’s third argument emphasizes that moral responsibility does not end with the decision to go to war but continues through post-war justice and reconciliation. He asserts:

• Responsibility of Leaders: Political and military leaders are morally accountable for the decisions they make, including the conduct of war.
• Responsibility of Soldiers: Individual soldiers bear moral responsibility for their actions during combat.
• Accountability for War Crimes: War crimes such as genocide, torture, and ethnic cleansing are morally reprehensible and must be prosecuted.

He stresses that acknowledgment of responsibility is essential for justice, reconciliation, and preventing future conflicts.

Post-War Justice and Reconciliation

Wasserstrom highlights the importance of:

• Reparations and Restorative Justice: Compensating victims and rebuilding societies affected by war.
• Truth Commissions: Uncovering truths about atrocities committed during war.
• International Legal Frameworks: Institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) play a vital role in ensuring accountability.

He argues that moral responsibility extends beyond the battlefield and that societies must strive to address the moral failures associated with war to foster peace and prevent recurrence.

Conclusion: Integrating Wasserstrom’s Arguments into Contemporary War Ethics

Wasserstrom’s three core arguments provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the morality of war:

• The importance of adhering to strict conditions for justifiable war.


• The moral limits on conduct during war to protect human dignity.


• The ongoing moral responsibilities of individuals and states, especially in post-war contexts.

In today’s complex global landscape, these principles are more relevant than ever. They serve as guiding standards for policymakers, military personnel, and citizens to ensure that war, when unavoidable, remains within the bounds of morality. Wasserstrom’s insights encourage a cautious, principled approach to warfare, emphasizing that ethical considerations must remain at the forefront of decisions that involve life, death, and human rights.

By understanding and applying Wasserstrom’s three arguments, we can foster a more morally conscious approach to conflict, striving for peace and justice even amid the realities of war. His work remains a vital contribution to the ongoing effort to reconcile the necessity of war with the imperative of morality.