Introduction The consideration of when it is or is not legitimate to use military force against another group or country is one that requires astute ethical analysis. Deontological ethics can be useful for determining the moral righteousness of military intervention, specifically given the ability of a duty-based ethical system to offer the international community a set of ground rules member states can agree upon. The Geneva Convention is a prime example of how deontological ethical standards can create a worldview whereby war in general is deemed morally unjust except in certain specific circumstances. One of the great weaknesses with deontological ethics, as applied to the military, is that not all entities share the same moral precepts. Terrorism and rogue states are examples of parties that do not ascribe to a set of moral rules like the Geneva Convention. Although deontological ethics can be overly rigid when applied to the complexity of international relations, the ethical theory does underscore the importance of outlining clearly the circumstances under which military force is warranted, in order to promote a universal ethic of peace.

Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics are duty-based ethics, meaning that the obedience to ethical laws or precepts are tantamount to the consequences of one’s actions. Philosopher Immanuel Kant is the premier philosopher associated with deontological ethics. Kant wrote extensively on the application of deontological ethics specifically to military matters and issues relating to war and peace.

Grounded in the notion that there are universal ethical principles, deontological ethics suggest that there are absolute, “definite laws,” (Kant, 1785, p. 1). Furthermore, Kant affirms the inherent rationality of obeying ethical laws: something that Kant calls a “supreme practical principle,” or the “categorical imperative,” (Kant, 1785, p. 1). In other words, it is irrational as well as immoral to deviate from universal ethical principles....

In 1795, Kant developed deontological principles and applied them specifically to the analysis of war and peace in Perpetual Peace. According to Kant, the ultimate objective in all political philosophy and international relations is to eventually abolish war and the military altogether. Until that time, states should refrain from infringing on the rights of others. Kant does also believe in the morality of freedom, and suggests that only republican or democratic forms of government are legitimate. Yet a deontological framework does not support military interventions into sovereign states only with the intent of manufacturing democracy, as the United States has attempted to do in the past (Orend, 1999). Kant’s concept of a “just war” is far more limited, mainly acknowledging the ethical imperative to self-defense or to defend one’s allies. Therefore, deontological ethics aptly describe the direction of international political philosophy since the Second World War.
Application

Deontological ethics provide a sound framework for answering the question of when military intervention is warranted or justified. Simply put, war is almost never justifiable. War is never morally acceptable for any selfish reason such as territorial expansion. Likewise, war is never morally acceptable as a means of resolving a dispute. Resorting to the use of force when peaceful options exist would be considered categorically immoral.

The reason behind the deontological ethical principles that condemn use of force in a general way is straightforward: all human beings have inherent value. Therefore, killing any human being is wrong even if waging war might lead to some desirable outcomes such as the ousting of a terrible dictator. Deontological ethics are by definition not consequential ethics. In other words, the consequences of an act (or failure to act) are less important than the moral duty to act in a certain way.

However, deontological ethics are not overly simplistic. Kant acknowledges…