elpais.com
Ethics of War: A Critical Analysis of Moral Limits in Warfare
Professor Enrique Bonete Perales's new book, "Ethics of War," examines the moral limits of warfare, analyzing historical and philosophical perspectives, particularly in light of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the 2023 Gaza conflict, arguing for accountability for war crimes and just peace settlements.
- What are the core arguments presented in Professor Bonete Perales's "Ethics of War" regarding the moral limits of warfare, and how do these arguments challenge prevailing geopolitical approaches?
- Professor Enrique Bonete Perales's new book, "Ethics of War," examines the moral limits of warfare, spurred by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the 2023 Gaza conflict. The book traces ethical considerations of war from Plato to the present, arguing against the amoral "realist bellicist" approach adopted by some nations.
- How does Bonete Perales's ethical framework for war, drawing on historical and philosophical sources, analyze the situations in Ukraine and Gaza, and what implications does this have for international relations?
- Bonete Perales contrasts the realist bellicism, which prioritizes victory regardless of ethical cost, with an ethical framework rooted in Christian political thought and the School of Salamanca. This framework condemns not only the initiation of war but also its conduct and conclusion, demanding accountability for war crimes and just peace settlements.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of failing to uphold ethical principles in ending armed conflicts, as discussed in Bonete Perales's work, and what are the implications for future peace and security?
- The book's analysis suggests that unjust peace deals, such as territorial concessions to aggressors, create unstable situations, potentially leading to future conflicts. Bonete Perales emphasizes the importance of upholding ethical and legal standards in ending wars, ensuring that aggressors are held accountable and that peace is sustainable.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently portrays Russia as the aggressor and Ukraine as the victim, which aligns with the interviewee's perspective. While this is a valid viewpoint, the framing could benefit from acknowledging the complexities of the conflict and the perspectives of all parties involved. The headline, if one were to be created for this interview, could be framed in a way to emphasize this imbalance.
Language Bias
While the language used is mostly neutral, terms like "brutal totalitarianism," "inmoral," and "agresor" carry strong negative connotations. Using more neutral terms like "authoritarian regime," "unethical," and "aggressor" could improve objectivity. The repeated emphasis on the immorality of Russia's actions might subtly influence the reader's perception.
Bias by Omission
The interview focuses heavily on the ethical considerations of the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza, but other global conflicts and their ethical implications are omitted. This might leave the reader with a skewed perception of the prevalence and nature of warfare globally. There is no discussion of the ethical complexities of other conflicts or the potential biases in reporting those conflicts.
False Dichotomy
The interview presents a clear dichotomy between "belicism" (the view that wars should not be evaluated morally) and the "ethics of war." While this framework is useful for structuring the discussion, it simplifies the complex spectrum of views on war and peace. Other perspectives, such as just war theory nuances or pacifism, are not explored.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza, highlighting the ethical considerations of war and the failure of international mechanisms to prevent or justly resolve conflicts. The ongoing conflicts demonstrate a failure of international peace and justice systems, undermining efforts toward sustainable peace and security. The disregard for international law and ethical principles in these conflicts directly impacts SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Quotes illustrating the negative impact include discussions of the disregard for international law, the lack of accountability for war crimes, and the potential for future conflicts due to unjust resolutions.