JUST A THOUGHT - ON THE MORAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF ATTACKING ANOTHER COUNTRY ON 'MORAL GROUNDS.' PART 4.

But, the use of 'morality' as an argument to invade another country and make war against them, can be very questionable. 

It can lead into uncomfortable territory, full of dilemmas. Not least because, there are those amongst us who would argue that war is 'immoral.'  

And that, if that is so, how, then, can those who would use 'morality' as a 'justification' for making war, avoid or answer the charge, the accusation, if you like. 

That they are being hypocritical and 'wrong', in resorting to 'immoral' means to achieve or try to achieve 'a moral outcome'? 

That, it seems to me, would require those who resort to such a mean, to seek refuge in arguments about 'greater good', 'lesser evil', 'least detrimental outcomes', 'means of last resort', etc.

After all, why should one kind of weapon be deemed 'immoral' or 'unacceptable', as opposed to another? 

Why should the use of chemicals as 'immoral', whereas the use of ammunition, be it bullets, artillery shells, cruise missiles or smart bombs be seen as 'legitimate' and 'moral', while chemical weapons are not? 

Which is not to say some differentiation should indeed be made. Or that the use of chemical weapons should or should not be banned. 

Although probably not anymore than anti-personal mines, or for that matter, nuclear weapons. 

Key to any discussion, should be those of what weapons should be banned, why, and what are the impartial mechanism for enforcing their banning, and imposing sanctions for those countries who infringe those ban.

Returning to the 'moral argument' for banning and imposing sanctions against those who develop and use chemical weapons or agents. 

It seems to me that the crucial issue is not the 'inherent morality or immorality' of a weapon, which is worrying the advocates of strong action against those who infringe the ban. 

But rather the the kind or 'kind of dying' it subjects its victims to. It seems to be about adhering to the concept or principle of the victim having as distress-free a death as possible. 

To be continued!