What is Worth the Cost of Human Lives? — The Ethics of War

By Kevin Si

The act of waging prolonged conflict, or war, on another group of persons, has been a human tradition ever since our existence. Humans have spent the majority of their history (and present) planning or waging wars against others. While technologies and strategies have evolved, the raw and primal brutality that manifests in war has persisted across history, leading to some of the worst bloodshed and atrocities that have been committed in recent history. Thus, the morality of this age-old human behavior has been a common discussion among philosophers. 

What (if any) justifications are there for war? Are there any intentions noble enough to justify bloodshed? Since wars have historically been intense armed conflicts between groups of enemies which often end in the loss of lives and property, it is probably best to measure the effect of war by the loss of human life. Perhaps we can ask a simpler question: What is worth the cost of human lives? 

Is it the natural resources that one seeks to gain from their enemies? Not really, no. In the past, many notable wars were fought over oil, land, and water, where the only goal of the instigators was to gain more material wealth from a victory. It doesn’t seem morally justifiable to slaughter and kill for one’s personal material gain. Why kill and destroy over resources that could be just as easily traded for in peace and harmony? 

Is it the fame and renown that one receives after winning a legendary battle? Again, this is a rather flimsy argument to justify the loss of human life. Destruction is not something one can reasonably use to bolster their own ego. Any loss of human life or property has far greater impact and importance than some war-monger’s ego or childish want.

Some may argue that if the soldiers involved willingly participate in a conflict, then it is morally acceptable, regardless of the cause or the harm that may come to them. However, in every conflict, there is always the chance of collateral damage. When these conflicts occur, there is a massive risk of involving people that don’t “willingly participate” in this war, and are not directly involved in the pursuits of the opposing sides. The destruction of natural resources (which could be used to improve the lives of everyday people) in order to further a conflict is an additional wasteful and illogical result of war, separate from any agreements taken by those fighting in the war.

So, is wanton destruction of life and property justified? Do natural resources, ego-boosting, or signed agreements justify war? No. Not a single goal, vision, ideology, opinion, ego, or belief is morally acceptable to destroy lives over. 

The Korean American War Memorial in Washington, D.C.

For those who continue to disagree, allow me to present one of the greatest embodiments of how war brings injustice, at a scale tenfold of that of the initial perpetrator—America’s own military. 

From carpet-bombing North Korea for three years during the Korean War, to committing democide in the Vietnam war and waterboarding the North Vietnamese, many unnecessarily atrocities were committed by the American military in the modern age. Even though the United States fought against “evil” governments and ideologies, the war crimes committed were only possible with a war being declared in the first place. Specifically, without the US’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict, the My Lai massacre would have been avoided, along with many other instances of intentional civilian killing, torture, and violence, like  in Operation Speedy Express, the Phoenix Program, and Tiger Force incidents. 

While it seems that I’ve been incredibly harsh on the US military, war crimes are just common occurrences in many countries. The current Russo-Ukrainian War, past and current conflicts in the middle east, and the Rape of Nanjing are just a few pertinent examples of the depraved nature of war. Even if Vladimir Putin's need to "unite a fractured people", or Japan's need to acquire more resources, were potentially justified grievances (which they are not), the human lives that were ruined, the homes that were leveled, and the trauma that was inflicted all show a much larger “net negative” than anything the initial perpetrators could have accomplished. 

The harsh reality of war is that it endangers everyone and everything in its path. It is a raging beast that may attempt to correct the most egregious of wrongs, but in the end, fails at achieving any resemblance of peace. Its path of destruction is often more violent and consequential than whatever actions ignited it, and thus even in the best scenarios, it is unnecessary and immoral. Until those tasked with preserving life and preventing wrongdoings can restrain themselves from being the perpetrators of yet another humanitarian crisis, war should not be an option.