A virtuous consequentialist view of war suggests that the use of weapons of mass destruction or humanitarian intervention is justified when the killing of militants is more likely to achieve the desired result. While it is difficult to determine whether an attack is moral or immoral, the use of weapons of mass destruction has a moral dimension. In a sense, the ethical considerations of such a war are essentially just a matter of convenience.
The concept of just war has been widely accepted, but this book challenges the tradition and proposes virtue ethics of war. The authors argue that no war can be justified, and therefore there can be no moral justification for it. Instead, they suggest a philosophy of coexistence, which places a higher emphasis on practical wisdom rather than on moral deliberation. The aim is to do more good than harm. A virtuous leader will be more likely to be an effective leader who will be able to make the right decisions in any situation.
Similarly, an indifferent approach to the morality of war may be counterproductive. While a noble person may be tempted to help a stranger in need, a virtuous person will be able to reason when to help them. Moreover, they will not be caught between a duty and pleasure and avoiding conflict. Hence, the virtuous approach to morality of war calls for a cautious approach.
Virtue ethics of war has been around for centuries. Aristotle was the father of virtue ethics. He offered a systematized account of human flourishing that defined virtues as states of character and intellect. Military virtues are often viewed as subsets of moral virtues. The soldiers who cultivate these virtues will thrive as human beings, and not just as warriors. This article explores the relationship between morality and military action.
Despite the growing importance of virtue ethics in war, there are no definitive definitions of what virtues are. For example, Aristotle’s definition of a virtue is a state of mind or character. These virtues are a part of the person, and the military values of the individual are a function of the individual’s values. For example, a soldier should never be in a position of vulnerability, because a traumatic experience can affect the person’s ability to think and act rationally.
Among the most important virtues in war are the capacity to be moral. During a conflict, one should strive to act responsibly to avoid causing pain to civilians and causing suffering to innocents. In a virtuous society, soldiers should be motivated by the need to do more good than harm. The military should be a good example for the public. Aristotle’s concept of the virtues is crucial for the morality of its citizens.
The Aristotelian virtue ethics is a systematic view of human flourishing. According to the philosopher, the virtuous person is one whose character tends toward right conduct and is able to choose the correct thing to do in any given circumstance. This theory is based on the belief that it is possible to live in a world where everyone is equal. As a result, the virtuous soldier is able to cultivate virtues in his army and become a better human being.
Nevertheless, a virtuous soldier will not allow himself to be killed by a group of innocents. This is not a good idea. The only way to avoid this is to use more force than necessary. If you kill an innocent civilian, you’ll have no moral obligation to kill that person. And if you kill an enemy, you’ll be committing a moral violation. The best way to deal with this is to avoid the conflict in the first place.
The first principle of virtue ethics is the justification of war. In just-war theory, a person’s motives for engaging in violence must be justified in some other way. A legitimate war must be waged in accordance with the law. However, it is possible to justify a jihad by using force without justification. Thus, the virtuous approach to war has a morally sound foundation.