Ethics of war and violence

When referring to war, the majority of debates fall on what is at best interests to survival and success- be it related to economic reasons to clashing political ideologies or even differences in religious beliefs. Too often as a result, the aspect of ethics and human impact is an afterthought to decisions made by countries and governments- but does the level of attention or priority make ethics any less important? In other words, is war ever morally permissible?

So what are the limits that morality places on wars? Conversely, what limits does wartime invoke on morality?  My approach (at least as of now, as I consider it while researching and developing thoughts for this project), is cautiously optimistic: I think that war, by majority, is by-and-large irrational. Achieving a certain end through means of violence lends itself to unnecessary casualty in the crossfire- regardless of who stands victorious in the end, it seems nearly inevitable in conflict that all parties involved ultimately incur massive losses.

Adding insult to injury is how modern media has come to polarize sides and even further inflate uproar. Among the most common weapons of modern war are warped narratives, disinformation, and misinformation- and have seriously contributed to creating a culture of closed mindedness among individuals and society at-large.

With the start of the new year, I, as an avid indulger of entertainment news, prepare to gear up for one of the most providing seasons for pop culture fans like me: awards season! 2023 was a great year for movies, most notably with the releases of Barbie (2023) and Oppenheimer (2023) creating one of the largest social phenomenons out of a portmanteau: Barbenheimer. I'll save everyone the synopses (but if anyone needs a recap, I can just refer you to Jo Koy). 

The latter film, Oppenheimer, is the latest addition to Christopher Nolan's massively successful filmography. A film biopic that analyzes the infamous man who led the Manhattan Project and focuses on the Allies' perspective on the creation of the atomic bombs. Oppenheimer is three hours in length, which some have criticized as being too long. And yet, it still didn't have enough room for any Japanese perspective for that matter, a convenient lack of point of view of the victims (Qarjouli 2023). Disclaimer: I still haven't watched Oppenheimer. But even just reading the online discourse, I can see what is inherently problematic- not even the misportrayal, but just a complete and utter absence of Japanese civilian suffering. At best, it was a poor judgment call from the director. At worst, a one-sided glorification of war.

And as social media becomes increasingly an essential part of our lives, public opinion on war has, over time, shifted from being reliable to now, just stunningly manipulative. Even now, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to rage on in the Gaza Strip, placing entire blame on either the Israelis or Palestinians is unfair- both are guilty of disseminating harmful misconceptions of each other (Gold 2015). With every statement holding an underlying agenda, the lines between truth and generalization, right and wrong, become blurred; every time I open Instagram, I brace myself for the seemingly endless and exploitative blue-pilling that, without active and conscious effort, is pretty much irresistible. With the media perpetuating the idea that peace is impossible, it is almost as if that, in and of itself, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Measuring intent amidst war can easily prove to be a philosophical undertaking- ambiguous and seemingly impossible to reach a final term on. And yet, we must not fall short of remembering our first, foundational priorities. It is relevant yet seemingly obvious to point out here that civilian casualties during war are largely accidental. But does merely not "wanting" to kill people allow an excusal from liability? Does not "intending" to kill innocent civilians make a murderer innocent, too?

I don't believe so. What are feelings for, if not to be taken and put to action? Where does the desire to be right lead one, if not to the wrong place?  

"The most important time for action is now." This ever relevant adage must be heeded tenfold in times of war, times when moral standards are crushingly necessary. Inaction is still action; just it is a conscious decision to remain complicit amidst violent extremism. Subjective feeling and passive willingness of violence in a glorified state is all but a fantasy, a daydream- only through action is it possible that we are able to collectively move forward from the past. In wartime, urgency is opportunity (Zuo 2007). Resolving conflict mere minutes earlier could save lives in the battles fought. Even the opportunity to avoid a single senseless casualty should be reason enough to commit to striving towards peace.

“Of course, I had to own that he was right; I didn’t feel much regret for what I’d done…I have never been able really to regret anything in all my life.” (Camus 100). The Stranger revolves around Meursault, an anomaly of a character whose inner thoughts show that he simply sees no reason to seek external validation or comply with certain standards. Even at the expense of being shunned from society, Meursault marches onwards as a stranger to his own life, indifferent to his actions in it, even after his senseless murder of someone who was a stranger to him. But are people truly not hardwired to feel guilt after committing violence?

This is getting a little depressing now. Considering the current state of the world, I feel myself shrinking more and more as I do my late-night doom scrolling that carries over when I wake up, feeling more sympathy for Meursault. Am I turning towards nihilism as a result of this project? (only partly joking)

“Maman used to say that you can always find something to be happy about.” (Camus 113). Throughout The Stranger, Meursault does not show much emotion, or care for that matter, for life. But it is in Meursault's final chapter that even he ultimately admits that despite seemingly apparent futility, there is a possibility that everything can change, and everything might actually have meaning. Warning- this is a very condensed and simplified moral of the story. In the least, it makes me feel a little better.

Perhaps the true enemy of war, all this time, has been war itself. Meta much? What I mean is that maybe I'm (and we're) not like Meursault after all. Or maybe we shouldn't be. When war is begun, there exists a tendency for violence to confound and contort basic moral principles that exist so clearly and naturally during peacetime. Fundamental pillars of society that were once universally agreed upon are no longer stable or supported. For as long as war endures, moral code and common logic suspends. Sometime amidst the fighting, social empathy becomes distorted- somewhere in the path of crossfire, hope for cooperation or diplomacy is lost.

So then, is it at all possible? Can happiness still exist amidst the turbulence of war? And if so, how? 

According to Pavlo Matyusha, a Ukrainian author and translator who joined the Armed Forces of Ukraine after the launch of Russia's 2022 invasion, happiness exists in hope. "Happiness in the belief in distant horizons for yourself and your children." It is crucial that we must search deeply to see ourselves in each other in times of war and civil unrest. Despite deep conflict, we must reach within and introspect. Somewhere along the way, we can begin again unraveling our basic human empathy to prioritize peace and bring forth meaningful, necessary change. 

Enter a world where the goal of war has nothing to do with revenge; instead, is ultimately just reaching an overarching sense of peace. A world that initially seemed distant, too far gone beneath all of the atrocity and loss. A world where, when reached, despite the mess of it all, we remember hope to be the truest thing of all, the hinge on the chain link that bonds us all together, where hope acts as a concept transcendent even across opposing forces.