The contemporary literature on military ethics has a long and rich pedigree. Anchored in the work of the ancient Greeks and Chinese, it was initiated in the Middle Ages and has come to maturity in contemporary treatises on modern warfare. Major contributions have been made by philosophers as distinct and distinguished as Sun Tzu, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Francisco de Victoria, Francisco Suarez, Hugo Grotius and Immanuel Kant. The common thread has been the effort to reflect on and formulate the legitimate principles for determining the whys, whens and hows of war: Why should war be begun? When should war be declared? How should war be waged and terminated? Not surprisingly, in answering these questions, the philosophical field of military ethics is suitably contested This means that, as with any project of ethical reflection, the ‘just war’ tradition should be thought of as constantly evolving and changing, not as forever fixed and definitive.

THE MILITARY TRADITION

Whatever the case in love, all is not fair in war. And it is most decidedly not the case that anything goes. Military ethics is not beholden to or exhausted by the permissive mandate to win at all costs. The professional soldier or warrior is very much part of ‘a world of permissions and prohibitions – a moral world’. Even in the exacting conditions of warfare, military personnel are considered situated within a moral context that both empowers them and controls them: they are to act as professionals who place ethical honor above material, instrumental or territorial gain. Accordingly, as objectionable as war is, many military ethicists and commentators maintain that it can be waged in ways that can be evaluated as morally better or worse. Indeed, as in most realms of moral argument and action, the energizing imperative is that the more serious and extensive the effects of chosen actions, the more compelling the ethical justifications for them need to be.