Paper Example on Moral Philosophy

The policy of Jus in Bello, war justice, acts as the platform which dictates action should be undertaken once war has started. Some stick to the notion that morality cannot be withheld in warfare objecting the just war theory (Davidson 2016). This is contrary to just war theory which develops the framework of morality in war and discards the conception that anything is acceptable during a war. In this light, armies are required to try and win, but they are not entitled to do anything that they deem necessary to acquire victory. There are limitations on the extent of the harm on none combatants as well as the weapons which can be used in the war (Fraser 2016). The policies applicable to war are aimed at protecting human life and other vital human rights, and to limit the level and the scope of violence. In this regard, a total war where neither proportionality nor discrimination acts as justifying factors should be avoided (Bachofen 2015).

Jus in Bello also calls for the war agents to take responsibility for their activities. In this case, when soldiers engage their enemy more than what is reasonable, attack noncombatants, or go against the rules of fair conduct, they commit murder and not act of war holding them responsible (Schaefer 2015). The International law proposes that every individual, regardless of the government status or rank, is to be made responsible for war crimes that he commits where war crimes tribunals have been set to address the same. It is crucial to note that the guiding principle of justice in war is different from those of Jus ad Bellum (justice of war). In this regard, a nation can fight justly in a war even if it lacks the just cause for the war (Stahn 2006). In contrary, it is possible for a nation to fight unjustly even in the presence of a just cause. The two holding tenets of Jus in Bello, proportionality, and discrimination outlines the rules of fair and just conduct in the course of the war (Kelly 2016). The principle of proportionality weighs how much force is appropriate according to the morals, while the discrimination policy points out the legitimate targets in warfare.

In the hypothetical case given, it is evident that Taliban are against an electricity project in Kandahar province. It is also evident that Taliban are attacking the power grid and mortars in the base camp to dematerialize the project. In this light, the commander has three courses of action which she has to weigh out to come up with the most favorable method of facing the Taliban.

First, the commander can decide to do nothing apart from ensuring the existing shelters, vehicles and other materials are safe. Also, it is advisable to stay alerted to stop the quick firing of the mortar by the Taliban where they can arrest them before they can fire off the mortars. This course of action goes hand in hand with the principle of proportionality where the corps is supposed to apply morally accepted force in the war. In this case, the Taliban sets up light and other easily transported weapons to fire off the mortars which have so far not killed any civilian, thus, making the corps to apply less force on the Taliban. This approach will, however, degrade the US Marine Corps purpose which is to ensure that the electricity project is not sabotaged as it will involve giving the Taliban a chance to continue squandering public properties. Also, the approach has the possibility of lowering public trust on the soldiers who are expected to protect public resources as well as the security for the civilians (Jackson, Huq, Bradford, and Tyler, 2013). The mortar barrages pose a threat to people outside the shelters and the vehicles not forgetting other important materials.

Secondly, the commander can order night patrols into the populated areas surrounding the base camp aiming at catching the mortar teams or deterring them. In the process, several soldiers were killed where, in this case, terming the approach as less appropriate. The commander has to ensure that security and life of the army are guaranteed since if they are killed at this rate, they are likely to lose the battle. Though the method seems to be better than the latter where no action was put in place, it has some limitations since it is hard to trace the where about of the Taliban mortar team.

Thirdly, the commander can order the use of the AN/TPQ-37 Fire finder Weapons Locating System which can detect an approaching mortar shell, track its parabolic arc and calculate the point of origin from which it was fired. This is important in locating the mortar team which will facilitate an attack on the Taliban and stops the destruction menace. This approach helps establish the position of the Taliban which gives the soldiers a good platform to kill and eliminate the group which has the ill motive of destroying public properties besides endangering human life. The approach will involve the destruction of houses in case of the Taliban mortar team fire from an alley between two houses. But the fact that the M198 will cause casualties the approach seems to be the best to be implemented.

In a nutshell, it is advisable for the commander to use the third method as it will end the menace once and for all. According to the principle of discrimination, it is sometimes legitimate to have civilian deaths or casualties when they turn out to be unavoidable. This is deemed as a collateral damage where the civilians may be affected in the process of destroying the military target. For instance, in this case, where the Taliban are the targets it will be morally accepted if civilians happen to be injured or killed in the process of eradicating the Taliban.

References List

Bachofen, B. (2015). The Paradox of Just War in Rousseau's Theory of Interstate Relations. American Political Science Review, 109(2), 314-325.

Davidson, L. A. (2016). Inclusive, just war theory: Confucian and Mohist contributions (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University).

Fraser, C. (2016). The Mozi and Just War Theory in Pre-Han Thought. Journal of Chinese Military History, 5(2), 135-175.

Jackson, J., Huq, A. Z., Bradford, B., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Monopolizing force? Police legitimacy and public attitudes toward the acceptability of violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 479.

Kelly, M. (2016). Just War Theory as Ideological and Combatant Role Confusion. International Journal of Peace Studies, 21(2).

Lango, J. W. (2014). The Ethics of Armed Conflict-A Cosmopolitan Just War Theory. Edinburgh University Press.

Schaefer, H. (2015). The Search for Justice in a War-Filled World: Implementing the Just-War Theory.

Stahn, C. (2006). Jus ad bellum,jus in bello...jus post bellum?Rethinking the Conception of The Law of Armed Force. The European Journal of International Law, 17(5), 921-943.