The question of whether some actions are universally forbidden, regardless of the situation, or if there are circumstances that justify setting aside rules, can be explored through ethical frameworks, historical examples, and contemporary debates. This question can be framed within the broader context of designing ethical decision-making systems, where clear rules may need to govern behaviour, but flexibility for edge cases might occasionally be justified. Drawing on the principles outlined in military ethics, the answer involves understanding concepts such as mala in se (actions inherently evil), the Just War Tradition, and the controversial notion of "supreme emergencies."
What is mala in se and what is universally prohibited?
What are the exceptions and how do they work in practise?
1. What is mala in se and what is universally prohibited?
Some actions, classified as mala in se, are universally regarded as morally and legally unacceptable due to their inherent harm and disproportionate consequences. Examples include:
- Intentional harm to non-combatants: Deliberately targeting civilians violates both the War Convention and fundamental ethical norms.
- Torture: Defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering for coercive or punitive purposes, torture is prohibited under international law (jus cogens), meaning no exceptions or agreements can justify it. For example, the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," such as waterboarding during the U.S. War on Terror, faced widespread condemnation and legal rejection.
There are also some areas of wrongdoing that are classed as crimes against humanity. These form a related category of the very biggest crimes that can be committed, covering things like ethnic cleansing, and genocide. These prohibitions reflect a belief that some actions, due to their nature, are incompatible with the values of humanity and justice, even in extreme situations.
The Just War Tradition underpins much of the modern understanding of ethical conduct in war, balancing practical and moral considerations. It is rooted in:
- Legal and philosophical principles: These include the Geneva Conventions and the broader War Convention, which establish limits on acceptable conduct during warfare.
- Pragmatic rationales: Adhering to rules—such as humane treatment of prisoners—encourages reciprocity and protects one's own forces.
- Moral identity: Following the rules is integral to maintaining the professional and ethical standards of armed forces, reflecting societal values.
While adherence to these rules is not always perfect, democratic institutions and public accountability mechanisms ensure that violations, such as the
Abu Ghraib scandal, are eventually scrutinized and addressed.
2. Exceptions: The contentious concept of "supreme emergency" - The idea of a "supreme emergency," articulated by political philosopher Michael Walzer, introduces a potential exception to universal rules. This concept applies to scenarios of imminent, existential threats where survival is at stake.
Historical example: During World War II, Britain's strategic bombing of German cities was justified as a temporary necessity to prevent Nazi domination. This decision involved targeting civilian populations—normally a clear violation of ethical norms—but was argued to be temporarily acceptable in light of the existential threat.
However, the justification for such actions diminishes as the emergency subsides or as alternatives become available, such as improved targeting technologies and new alliances. The "supreme emergency" argument remains highly debated among ethicists, with concerns about the slippery slope of justifying lesser evils under the guise of necessity.
In contemporary conflicts, the "supreme emergency" argument holds little weight because most wars are discretionary rather than existential. As discretionary wars are fought for political interests or regional influence, rather than survival, they lack the high stakes required to justify overriding ethical norms. The test for a "supreme emergency" sets an exceptionally high bar, underscoring the importance of adhering to rules and norms even during crises. The default stance remains strict adherence to rules, emphasizing that exceptions must be rare, well-justified, and reversible.
While the notion of a "supreme emergency" suggests that extreme situations might justify setting aside certain rules, this concept is controversial and if it applies at all, is limited to very rare and extraordinary circumstances. Actions classified as mala in se, such as torture or genocide, remain universally prohibited due to their inherent harm and moral indefensibility. Ethical standards, as articulated in the Just War Tradition and international law, provide a robust framework for navigating the moral complexities of war, emphasizing that rules are essential for preserving humanity and justice—even when the stakes are high.
12
12
12
12