1. Ethics
   1. Utilitarianism
      1. An ethics of consequences
      2. The right action is the one that brings about the best overall outcome
      3. Ethics is a means not an ends.
         1. If ends justify the means then no means are off the table - dangerous ground!
      4. Maximises moral value (Cost-benefit Analysis)
      5. Fundamental Human happiness & avoidance of pain - all other values are derivative.
      6. Equality - Each is to count for one & no-one is to count for more than one.
      7. Advantages
         1. Rational & humane
         2. Simple decision theory
         3. Determinate - quantifiable
         4. Universal & not dependant on culturally specific, moral beliefs (Pleasure & pain same world over.)
         5. Cultural relativism
      8. Disadvantages
         1. Epistemic (How we know things) uncertainty
         2. Often gives radical, counter intuitive results, e.g. transplant case.
         3. Not revisionary or false theory but incomplete theory.
   2. Deontology
      1. An ethics of rights.
      2. From Greek 'Deon = Duty
      3. Some acts are right or wrong.
         1. Irrespective of consequences
         2. e.g. murder, torture, international killing of civilians
      4. Human Rights
         1. Specify absolute limits, absolute guarantees.
         2. Right to life, liberty, security, freedom from torture.
      5. Act as 'red lines' - constrain utilitarian decisions
      6. Attach to individuals & generate correlative duties (My right = your duty)
      7. Universal
      8. Codified in but not generated by international law, e.g. Universal declaration of Human Rights.
      9. Treats people as 'ends' not 'means'. (Immanuel Kant)
      10. Not just something for our use - humans have dignity therefore not just an object for use. Test - is this action treating everyone affected by it as an 'end' or as a 'means'?
2. Just War Theory (The Middle Way)
   1. Pre-emption (Preventative War)
      1. Is pre-emption self-defence really self-defence?
         1. Liability to Force
         2. 'Minority Report' Scenario - Interjecting before offence committed
         3. Not done enough to justify pre-emptive strike, therefore affects recipricosity.
      2. What would be the consequences of permitting preventative war? - Universability & Precedent, therefore what is context with current conflicts - Indo/Pak, Korea. Both sides could justify pre-emptive strike.
   2. Humanitarian Intervention
      1. Responsibility to protect (Duty to Intervene? Consistence?
      2. - Sovereign right to self-defence v human rights globally? - Really just same idea but with different interpretation.
   3. Jus Port Bellum
      1. Occupation Law
      2. Duty to Prepare
      3. Duty to Reconstruct
         1. Do you fix it, break it?
         2. Humanitarian Ops.
      4. Regime Change?
      5. Post Conflict Justice
         1. Criminal Prosecutions
         2. Reparations
   4. Collateral Damage & the Doctrine of Double Effect
      1. Draws distinction between - directly intending a harmful act (either as an ends or a means to something else) or - Foreseeing a harmful act but not intending it.
      2. Bound by condition of:
         1. Necessity - no other option, e.g. sacrifice 1 to save 5.
         2. Proportionality
      3. Limits of Double Effects
         1. Is accepting death of innocents as a by-product of ones actions really combatable with Kantian 'respect for person'?
         2. Counting Casualties?
         3. Third Condition
            1. One has taken active steps to mitigate / minimise the foreseen collateral harm, even if accepting some risk for own self / personnel.
         4. What are the appropriate std of care for sldrs operating in the vicinity of civilians (ROE)?
      4. Principle of Double Effect
         1. When collateral damage is not checked, held accountable then moral authority is undermined at all levels.
         2. Intended Effect
         3. Unintended Effect
         4. See Diagram sheet
3. Law
   1. For Law to be legitimate it must be based on ethics
      1. Rights & Military Force
         1. Rights are absolute and universal - but can be forfeited, e.g. when you break the law.
         2. Rights imply reciprocal obligations.
         3. Wrongful action can create moral & legal liabilities to harm, therefore deliberately killing en is not wrong.
         4. - Determines acceptable aims of war - principally self-defence. - Constraints on means of war - necessary & proportionate. - Discrimination between combatants & non-combatants.
      2. LOAC
      3. Responsibility in War
         1. Traditional Theory
            1. Independent Thesis = ad bellum status of combatent's cause does not affect his in bello rights & obligations.
            2. Symmetry Theory = The in bello rights & obligations of combatants apply equally to opposition.
         2. Self-Defence v Self-Preservation
            1. No right to use defencive force just because they are threatening your life.
            2. Only 'just' if what you are doing is legal. Self-defence relies on defence of threat that is justifiable.
         3. Proportionality Arguement
            1. Prohibited to engage in an attack which may cause excessive incidental loss against the expected military advantage anticipated. (GC Protocol 1)
            2. Must be morally valuable.
         4. Utilitarian Arguement
            1. Why give unjust aggressor any combat privileges / rights?
            2. Justified acts might enjoy additional combat privileges?
         5. Responsibility Arguement
            1. Are sldrs fighting an unjust war excused because of duress or ignorance? - No.
            2. Accept Govt has more info but we also have lots of info to make our own decisions on justification.
            3. Std for domestic criminal liability.
         6. Objections
            1. Asymmetry world of incentives for discrimination
            2. Asymmetry world erode fighting effectiveness & endanger just state
            3. Asymmetry world prolong war.
            4. The problem of victors justice.
4. Ethics & the Military
   1. Just in Bellum: What is required to justify going to war, i.e. the 'ends.'
      1. Just Cause
      2. Declaration by legal Authy
      3. Declaration by legal Authy
      4. Right Intention
      5. Proportional Response
      6. Benefits must outweigh consequenses
      7. Chance of Success
      8. Last Resort
      9. Traditional responsibility of the Sovereign
   2. Jus in Bello: Limits on the use of force in war, i.e. the 'means.'
      1. Proportionality
         1. Conduct war in a way that allows post war reconciliation. (Socrates)
      2. You can make a just war unjustifiable if you get the 'means' wrong.
      3. Discrimination (Distinction)
         1. Moral duty not to enact an unjust order. (Vitoria 16thC)
      4. Necessity
         1. We go to war that we may have peace. (St Augustine)
      5. Traditional responsibility of the Soldier
   3. Tactically
      1. Legitimacy of own actions is CogG of Op. e.g. COIN/CT.
      2. Assume any lapses in Op conduct will be exposed in media - mobile phone video & YouTube.
   4. Soldiers Actions
      1. Has lethal force as a tool
      2. What makes him different from a gangster, terrorist, murderer?
      3. Why is permission to use lethal force constrained?
5. - Ethics as a tool for appropriate problem. - Critically test our beliefs & assumptions. - Explain & support ethical commitments.