In Chapter 5 of The Morality of War, Brian Orend discusses...

In Chapter 5 of The Morality of War, Brian Orend discusses the particular case of supreme emergencies, hereby defined as a state of war during which an aggressor state comes dangerously close to overpowering the victim state militarly, probably followed by extreme brutalization of the victim states population and various violations of human rights, such as rape, slavery, mass murder and so on. The concept of supreme emergency has caused controversy in the discourse about the morality of war, regarding both what constitutes a supreme emergency and how supreme emergencies are to be addressed within the context of just war theory. In this essay, I will review Orends exposition on the matter and follow with an introduction of elements that†¦show more content†¦The third view is that even during supreme emergencies strict jus in bello laws must be observed; if we allow for exceptions the integrity of the rules themselves comes into question. The fourth view, proposed by Walzer, i s to acknowledge a multidimensionality of morality and thereby invoke a paradox: the means by which we must necessarily respond in supreme emergencies are both immoral but morally necessary; they are both morally right and morally wrong, and we must learn to live with that contradiction. Orend himself, who proposes the fifth view, argues that Walzer cannot have his cake and eat it, too. He suggests instead that, while supreme emergency measures are sometimes necessary to secure victory, they are undoubtedly immoral. They are wrong, and while they are also necessary, we cannot pretend that they are moral because they are necessary. But Orend does agree that sometimes during war such measures are necessary to secure victory of victim over aggressor, and therefore a larger justice. The issue that emerges here is, admittedly, one of prudence versus morality. In order to refine our existence, we must first secure it, the argument goes. In the case of a supreme emergency, arguably the onl y options that remain for a victim state are either annihilation or the destruction of an innocent other. Given this premise, the arguments made thus far contend that it is only natural, and