Advertisement

Ethics in the Conduct of War

  • Sheldon G. Levy
Part of the University of Reading European and International Studies book series (UREIS)

Abstract

Most social science examinations of war are concerned with its occurrence, the admirable goal being to eliminate or at least reduce its frequency. However the destructiveness of wars and other incidents of mass killing are primarily a function of their size rather than their occasion. This chapter is most concerned with the psychological bases for the lack of restraint in intergroup conflict as expressed in event magnitude. It reports on the views of ‘bystanders’ to history, that is, individuals who were not directly involved in the events, as obtained from standardised questionnaires. The discussion, which is based on results from several large groups of college students in a number of locations, examines their beliefs about both the general principles that should be applied to armed conflict as well as the degree to which specific historical events were viewed as exceeding acceptable standards of behaviour.

Keywords

Social Approval Prison Term Mass Killing Intergroup Conflict Systemic Punishment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    R. Rummel, ‘Power, Genocide and Mass Murder’, Journal of Peace Research, 31 (1994) 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 5.
    S. Milgram, Obedience to Authority (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).Google Scholar
  3. 7.
    R. Brown and R. J. Herrnstein, Psychology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975) pp. 205–8.Google Scholar
  4. 10.
    R. Brammer, ‘Up and Down Wall Street: Oil Change’, Barron’s, 6 March 1995, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  5. 17.
    Turner and Surace provide a specific test of the hypothesis: R. H. Turner and S. H. Surace, ‘Zoot-suiters and Mexicans: Symbols in Crowd Behavior’, The American Journal of Sociology, 62 (1956) 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 18.
    L. Berkowitz, Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962);Google Scholar
  7. L. Berkowitz, ‘Social Motivation’, in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed., Volume 3, (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969);Google Scholar
  8. L. Berkowitz, Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences and Control (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993).Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    An early study is that of La Piere: R. T. La Piere: R. T. La Piere, ‘Attitudes vs. Actions’, Social Forces, 13 (1934) 230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 24.
    A more technical presentation of the results is in S. G. Levy, ‘Attitudes Toward the Conduct of War’, Conflict and Peace: The Journal of Peace Psychology, 2 (1995) 179–97.Google Scholar
  11. 26.
    R. Clark, The Fire this Time: U.S. War Crimes in the Gulf (New York: Thunders Mouth, 1992).Google Scholar
  12. 29.
    L. Riefenstahl (director), Triumph of the Will (Germany, 1935);Google Scholar
  13. H. Schirk (director), The Wansee Conference (Germany, 1984);Google Scholar
  14. B. Trent (director), Panama Deception (North Carolina: Empowerment Project, 1992);Google Scholar
  15. J. Knoop, Report from Iraq (Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies, 1991).Google Scholar
  16. 32.
    C. A. Kiesler, B. Collins and N. Miller, Attitude Change (New York: Wiley, 1969), pp. 191–237.Google Scholar
  17. 33.
    The importance of superordinate goals on reducing hostility between groups was an important outcome reported by Sherif in the Robber’s Cave studies. M. Sherif, ‘Experiments in Group Conflict’, Scientific American, 195(5) (1956) 54–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 34.
    R. Stagner, ‘Fascist Attitudes: An Exploratory Study’, Journal of Social Psychology, 7 (1936) 309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. G. Levy, ‘An Examination of the Relationship between Systemic Punishment and Systemic Frustration’, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13 (1979) 330–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 39.
    A. H. Barton, Communities in Disaster (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1970);Google Scholar
  21. O. R. Holsti, ‘The 1914 Case’, American Political Science Review 59 (1965) 365–78; Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 41.
    A series of studies have related anxiety to authoritarianism or dogmatism, for example D. J. Hanson and A. M. Bush, ‘Anxiety and Dogmatism’, Psychological Reports 29 (1971) 366;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. S. M. Sales, ‘Threat as a Factor in Authoritarianism: An Analysis of Archival Data’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28 (1973)44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 42.
    Freud’s theoretical discussion and the analysis and discussion by Shils and Janowitz based on interviews with German soldiers in World War Two who had surrendered are relevant. S. Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (New York: Bantam, 1960; originally published, 1921);Google Scholar
  25. E. A. Shils and M. Janowit. Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (New York: Bantam, 1960; originally published, 1921);Google Scholar
  26. E. A. Shils and M. Janowit, ‘Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 12 (1948) 280–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 43.
    Support for this position is in M. Rejai (with K. Phillips), Leaders of Revolution (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979).Google Scholar
  28. 45.
    B. Bettleheim, ‘Individual and Mass Behavior in Extreme Situations’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38 (1943) 417–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 47.
    R. Brown, Social Psychology (New York: The Free Press, 1965).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheldon G. Levy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations