Ethics question

[Earthborn]

The justification of the war with Iraq has puzzeled me. When the anti-war people say that innocent lives are lost because of the US led attacks, the pro-war people are quick to say that more people would have been lost without them. Let's assume that's true... Does that make the war automatically justified?

Let's put it simply:
Doing X will kill innocent civilians
Not doing X will kill more innocent civilians that doing X

Does that mean that doing X is preferable to not doing X?
Before you make a judgement, let's fill in something different for X:

Killing people to harvest their organs for transplant kills innocent civilians
Not killing people for their organs will kill more innocent civilians who suffer from deceases that could be cured with the organs.

Isn't the logic comparable? Doesn't this logic mean that it is justified to kill innocent civilians to harvest their organs? If not, why not?

Suppose we would agree that doing X which kills civilians, is preferable to not doing X which would kill more civilians. Doesn't that mean it would be better to choose to abandon the Iraqis, allowing the Iraqi regime to do what it wants, and using all the resources used for the war to eradicate tuberculoses?

Is it perhaps that we consider people dying because of the actions of other people a greater injustice than people dying of more natural causes, even if those natural deaths are preventable?

Enlighten me...

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Earthborn,

I think the key to this conundrum is that you cannot consider a single value in a vacuum.

Basically our concept of ethics and morality is based on our values. Clearly the entire question you have posed is not even an ethical or moral question to somebody who does not value human life.

That said, if the only thing you value is human life, then the answer is simple. Killing innocent people to save the lives of more people is the way to go.

Of course, for most people, human life is not the only thing we value. We also value things like freedom, liberty, happiness, etc...

In other words, people's quality of life is important too. In you organ harvesting example, the quality of life of people living in a society which murders innocent people to harvest organs for other people, is not going to be very good. If the victims are chosen at random, then everybody will be living in fear of being the next victim. If the victims are some class of people, such as poor people, then they are going to be oppressed. And so on.

As to Iraq, I would say that, at least for me, the decision to go in is the moral one, because I think it is most consistent with all of my values. Sure, some innocent people will die, but not only will it be fewer than would have died otherwise, the quality of life of those who remain will be much better. Also, the innocent people who are being put in danger by the war are the same people who are in danger without the war, so it is not like we are asking (or forcing) one person to die for another.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Earthborn]

In other words, people's quality of life is important too. In you organ harvesting example, the quality of life of people living in a society which murders innocent people to harvest organs for other people, is not going to be very good. If the victims are chosen at random, then everybody will be living in fear of being the next victim. If the victims are some class of people, such as poor people, then they are going to be oppressed. And so on.

Agreed.

Sure, some innocent people will die, but not only will it be fewer than would have died otherwise, the quality of life of those who remain will be much better.

Yes, but why is that better than fighting tbc? "Sure, some innocent people (Iraqis) will be die, but not only fewer than would have died otherwise, the quality of those that remain (the world population) will be much better: no more fear of getting infected, no more people suffering from a painful illness."
It doesn't solve the issue.

Also, the innocent people who are being put in danger by the war are the same people who are in danger without the war, so it is not like we are asking (or forcing) one person to die for another.

I'm not sure this is true. I would guess that most people who are dying because of the coalition bombs are people who just tried to make the best of their situation under an oppressive regime, like the majority would do. The oppressive regime would more likely target the people who are actively opposing it; dissidents. When people say that 'Saddam has gassed his own people' they mean that Kurds were gassed, not citizens of Baghdad. So people do die for others.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Earthborn,

Sure, some innocent people will die, but not only will it be fewer than would have died otherwise, the quality of life of those who remain will be much better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but why is that better than fighting tbc? "Sure, some innocent people (Iraqis) will be die, but not only fewer than would have died otherwise, the quality of those that remain (the world population) will be much better: no more fear of getting infected, no more people suffering from a painful illness."
It doesn't solve the issue.

No, just the fear of being the innocent victim who has to "take one for the team" the next time the Government decides to harvest test subjects to find a cure for a disease.

The reason we don't do these sorts of things is because we respect the right of an individual to not have to sacrifice himself for the good of society if he doesn't want to.

Also, the innocent people who are being put in danger by the war are the same people who are in danger without the war, so it is not like we are asking (or forcing) one person to die for another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure this is true. I would guess that most people who are dying because of the coalition bombs are people who just tried to make the best of their situation under an oppressive regime, like the majority would do. The oppressive regime would more likely target the people who are actively opposing it; dissidents. When people say that 'Saddam has gassed his own people' they mean that Kurds were gassed, not citizens of Baghdad. So people do die for others.

Sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold water. The entire population was being oppressed. Any civilian in Iraq was subject to torture and/or death at the whim of the government. Sure, Saddam is, for purely pragmatic reasons, going to go after those he considers a threat, but he had no compunctions about killing or harming innocent people in the process.

When he gassed the Kurds, he gassed a lot of people who were "just trying to make the of their situation under an oppressive regime", simply because they had the misfortune of being in proximity to those who dared try to stand up to Saddam. That was a situation every person in Iraq faced. At any time, any of them could be targeted and killed, for nothing more than unknowingly being in close proximity to somebody that Saddam considered a threat.

Bottom line: In a war innocent people get killed, because in a war nobody is safe. But in Iraq, nobody was safe to begin with. Sure, during the fighting everyone was in more danger than normal, but assuming that the US sticks with it, and does the right thing for a change, in the long run life will be much safer, and much better, for the Iraqi people than it was before.

Of course, if the US and the UK just pull out when it is all over, and leave the country in the hands of whichever new dictator manages to come up with the money to take control, then we will have accomplished nothing more that killing a bunch of innocent (and not so innocent) people. I sincerely hope that this is not what happens, though. And I sincerely hope that if the US and UK governments try to do this, that the people of those countries will not stand for it. I know that as an American citizen, I certainly won't.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

Maybe WAR is just another stupid game.

"End of the game , end of the war" by iraqui ambassador at the United Nations.

Years ago, I can not remember his name, another man wrote :

"War is just a game , that Kings will never play, if their subdits (...) are intelligents enough"

Maybe the translation is not good enough, but that was the idea.

Yes, maybe they are just fooling people.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Earthborn]

No, just the fear of being the innocent victim who has to "take one for the team" the next time the Government decides to harvest test subjects to find a cure for a disease.

In the TBC scenario I outlined I did not include anything about a government harvesting test subjects. All that is included is not fighting war but instead using the resources to cure people.

The medication and treatment protocols already exist. The only thing that prevents global eradication of TBC is lack of funds. In fact if the US would finance it alone it could still fight a few decent wars if it wants to. So why doesn't it happen?

Why is saving 20 million Iraqi civilians worth hundreds of thousands of millions while saving 6% of the world population is only worth a few hundred million?

A total of US$ 211 million in new funding for NTPs was committed during 2002, to cover the five-year planning period 2001-2005. This reduces the total funding gap anticipated by NTPs for this period to only US$ 0.2 billion. However, there may be an additional shortfall of at least US$ 0.9 billion due to deficiencies in staff and infrastructure.
For 2003, the total budget requirement specifically for TB control in the 22 HBCs is US$ 481 million, of which US$ 52 million (11%) is not yet available. The anticipated funding gap for 2003 is lower than that reported for 2002.

From here: http://www.who.int/gtb/publications/globrep/index.html

 

[Shroud of Akron]

Why is saving 20 million Iraqi civilians worth hundreds of thousands of millions while saving 6% of the world population is only worth a few hundred million?

i think the answer is that the US govt sees the iraqi regime as a greater threat to it's citizens than TB. when terrorists have the ability to wipe out 3000 people at a time, they take that more seriously than the chance of all of the US population contracting TB, or even 3000 for that matter. TB can be treated on a case to case basis, terrorism can not. preventing a regime from spreading terror to it's neighbors and the rest of the world seems to be justifiable, to me anyway. i will admit that i did not favor the war while going in, but after seeing the iraqi people rejoice at the chance to be liberated changed my mind. even if we don't find WMD, i will feel that we did the right thing.

by the way, as i am not versed on TB (or much of anything else) can it actually be cured? just wondering. forgive my ignorance in this matter.

 

[Earthborn]

i think the answer is that the US govt sees the iraqi regime as a greater threat to it's citizens than TB. when terrorists have the ability to wipe out 3000 people at a time, they take that more seriously than the chance of all of the US population contracting TB, or even 3000 for that matter.

I you say is true than it is a perfect example of the US only fighting for its own interests, not giving a damn about the rest of the world. It would mean that the 'freeing of the Iraqi people' is just rhetoric. That may very well be true but isn't relevant for the discussion.

TB can be treated on a case to case basis, terrorism can not.

I don't think terrorism and TB are so terribly different in this regard. Every terrorist(cell) must also be dealt with one at a time. But both require funding and coordination. The big difference is that if TB is dealt with it is certain to succeed. There is a proven method of curing it. Terrorism is harder to tackle.

Preventing a regime from spreading terror to it's neighbors and the rest of the world seems to be justifiable, to me anyway.

I don't think the connection between terrorism and Iraq is proven. And even if it is, it is no way comparable to the suffering caused by TB.

even if we don't find WMD, i will feel that we did the right thing.

I think the real challenges of this war are yet to begin. Let's wait and see whether the coalition forces really manage to establish a viable democracy there.

can it actually be cured?

Yes, it can. It is a simple bacterial infection and can be cured with antibiotics. It can also be diagnosed at an early stage. If you get TB in a western country you will get some antibiotics, and provided that you finish the cure you will have no ill effects whatsoever. You will hardly notice it. However... in many countries healthcare is seriously underfunded and because of that many people never get a full treatment. Only getting a partial treatment means that the bacterium gains resistance and many people are already infected by multiresitant TB. For this more serious medication is needed, that is not only tougher on the patient, but much more expensive as well. However, if people get it, they will be cured.
For some reason, apart from old age, TB is the nr. 1 cause of death in the world...

In my hypothetical I assumed that if the money that is spend on the war in Iraq would have been used to cure TBC, it would be possible to eradicate it completely. I assumed that if one believes that killing innocent lives to prevent the deaths of more innocent lives, that the rational choice would be to fight TB and allowing the Iraqi regime to do what it wants. Please note that that is hopelessly pessimistic: eradicating TBC would cost far less.

Back to the subject of whether it is justified to kill innocent people to save innocent people.

That said, if the only thing you value is human life, then the answer is simple. Killing innocent people to save the lives of more people is the way to go.

Not necessarily. This would be true if the value of human life was countable: many humans are worth more than one human.

Someone could also argue that the value of a human being is infinite. This means that killing one to save many is not justifiable under any circumstance. Such a position would be problematic when there is no other way to solve a problem, but it would also require people to try to find a nonviolent solution even if there doesn't seem to be one at first.

Which raises another question: how exactly do you know there isn't any other solution than violence?

 

[Shroud of Akron]

why is the US the one that should be responsible for spending money on TB for the world? i think that the current administration in the US feels that the threat of iraq is a greater threat than TB to the US. would it be more ethical to ignore overt hostility toward the people you have sworn to protect than to save the rest of the world from TB? whether or not the threat is real, if the govt feels that the threat exists to it's people, it is ethically bound to protect them. i am sad that the world's population must suffer from disease, but the burden to eleviate that suffering must come from all countries as they see fit. there is no TB crisis in the US. we have good healthcare here, but we also worked hard for it. you admit the the US govt does help pay the bill for TB, how many other countries do too, and how much do they pay?

 

[bpesta22]

The justification of the war with Iraq has puzzeled me. When the anti-war people say that innocent lives are lost because of the US led attacks, the pro-war people are quick to say that more people would have been lost without them. Let's assume that's true... Does that make the war automatically justified?

Let's put it simply:
Doing X will kill innocent civilians
Not doing X will kill more innocent civilians that doing X

Does that mean that doing X is preferable to not doing X?

I'm not sure your conclusion follows from a pure deductive logic standpoint.

I think the best way to symbolize your argument is:

x = harvesting organs
y = innocents die
z = more innocents die than with x

so,

if x then y
if not x then (y and z)

since x or not x must be true,

then y or (y and z) must also be true

Using distribution we get:

(y or y) and (y or z). Using simplification we get:

y or y

y or z

So all we can conclude from your argument is that innocents will die.
If you put in a premise stating that we are obligated against doing z (i.e., not z), then not x follows:

if x then y
if x then (y and z)
not z
not z or not y (addition)
not (y and z) (de morgan's)
not x (modus tollens)

But, I'm not sure "we are obligated to not do z" is true, which makes the soundness of the argument questionable.

What if x were totally inexpensive and save 99% of lives; whereas not x was incredibly costly but saved 99 of lives. I'm not sure the argument would be sound

A real world example of this might be pollution. Controlling all polution would save more lives than not controlling it. However, industry, the economy and our way of life would crash.

B

 

[Earthborn]

why is the US the one that should be responsible for spending money on TB for the world?

I'm not saying it is. It would be quite far if the rest for the world should pay its share, which aperently it doesn't want to.

What I am arguing is that the people who argue that the war against Iraq is fought to prevent more innocent deaths than would have been caused by not fighting it, could use the same logic to not fighting the war and instead spend the money on curing TBC: it prevents more innocent deaths than not curing TBC.
Strange that you think the US shouldn't be solely responsible for curing TBC, while it is almost solely responsible for fighting the war with Iraq, which costs more and saves fewer lives. If you want your taxmoney to be efficiently spend, saving as many lives for a buck as possible, than curing TBC would be the rational choice, even if it means the US is the only country contributing!

would it be more ethical to ignore overt hostility toward the people you have sworn to protect than to save the rest of the world from TB?

That's what I am trying to find out with this thread. I don't know. What is your opinion on it: are innocent deaths caused by humans worse than innocent deaths caused by a natural desease, even if that desease can be cured and preventing innocent deaths caused by humans will cost more innocent deaths caused by the natural desease?

whether or not the threat is real

Of course with TB, there is no question whether the threat is real. It is certain.

there is no TB crisis in the US. we have good healthcare here, but we also worked hard for it.

Actually, because of the poor healthcare funding for the working and unemployed poor in it, the US actually is a bigger problem when it comes to TBC than many other Western countries. There are some good initiatives to makes sure poor people get their medication and finish their treatment, but just about everywhere in the world those are underfunded.

If the US only has responsiblity for the protection of its own citizens, I can still make a similar argument: why would it be better to protect the citizens from terrorism (assuming for a minute fighting the Iraqi regime will accomplish that) than creating a well funded National Health Service, if the latter would save more American lives than fighting terrorism and certainly wouldn't cost more.

x = harvesting organs
y = innocents die
z = more innocents die than with x

so,

if x then y
if not x then (y and z)

This seems to assume that the same innocents of y will die, x or not x. That's not necessarily true.

But, I'm not sure "we are obligated to not do z" is true, which makes the soundness of the argument questionable.

The question is 'are we obligated to not do z' as the people who claim the war on Iraq is to prevent more Iraqi deaths (caused by the Iraqi regime) say. That's what I want to know: is it justifiable to kill innocent people to prevent more innocent people from being killed? I don't know, it confuses me.

What if x were totally inexpensive and save 99% of lives; whereas not x was incredibly costly but saved 99(% ?) of lives.

That would make the issue only more complex. Let's stick to the problem where the options are all equally costly financially but one is more costly in human lives than the other.

A real world example of this might be pollution. Controlling all polution would save more lives than not controlling it. However, industry, the economy and our way of life would crash.

I think it would be safe to say that crashing the world economy would cost more human life than not controlling pollution at all. And a total control of pollution would be much more expensive than a 'near-total'-control even though the difference in deaths between total and near-total would be insignificantly small. Most people in the West live with much less airpollution than people did in medieval cities. They wouldn't if there was no control of polution at all like in the 19th century, so we already have a 'near-total' pollution control and that doesn't seem to hurt the economy one bit.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Earthborn,

No, just the fear of being the innocent victim who has to "take one for the team" the next time the Government decides to harvest test subjects to find a cure for a disease.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the TBC scenario I outlined I did not include anything about a government harvesting test subjects. All that is included is not fighting war but instead using the resources to cure people.

I misunderstood what you meant by "TBC scenario". The problem with this aproach is that it amounts to isolationaism. I agree that Medical resarch is important, and underfunded. In fact, that is the field I work in. My salary comes from such funding (only in Germany, not the US). But no Nation exists in a vacuum. We cannot simply take care of our own people, and ignore as people in other nations starve, and are tortured and murdered.

The medication and treatment protocols already exist. The only thing that prevents global eradication of TBC is lack of funds. In fact if the US would finance it alone it could still fight a few decent wars if it wants to. So why doesn't it happen?

Why is saving 20 million Iraqi civilians worth hundreds of thousands of millions while saving 6% of the world population is only worth a few hundred million?

It is not a "one or the other" thing. You can argue all you want about what the relative importence of these two things are, and how much money should be spent on each, but the fact remains that they are both important, and that it would be a mistake to ignore one entirely in favor of the other.

Besides, how do you propose we distribute these treatments in Nations which don't want to do so, like Iraq? We can give them all the medicine, food, money, and other forms of humanitarian aid that you like. It does no good if those governments simply cease those resources, and sell/use them to further oppress their own people.

It also does no good to wipe out TB if the situation in the Middle East escalates to the point of nuclear warfare. Everything the US, or anybody else, does over there should be done from the point of view of stablizing the situation, and bringing about something closely approximating peace. I am not convinced that this is what is being done, nor am I at all convinced that this is the goal of the Bush administration. But given that your question was hypothetical, and not a question of whether the specific actions taken were the right ones, I think that my argument is a valid one.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Shroud of Akron]

Strange that you think the US shouldn't be solely responsible for curing TBC, while it is almost solely responsible for fighting the war with Iraq, which costs more and saves fewer lives.

no one else wanted to do it, someone had to.

If you want your taxmoney to be efficiently spend, saving as many lives for a buck as possible, than curing TBC would be the rational choice, even if it means the US is the only country contributing!

does rationality necessarily equal ethical?

What is your opinion on it: are innocent deaths caused by humans worse than innocent deaths caused by a natural desease, even if that desease can be cured and preventing innocent deaths caused by humans will cost more innocent deaths caused by the natural desease?

i think that when the situation is more complex than just humans killing humans, it is more ethical. in the iraq case, you have a regime that not only kills it's own people, but funds and actively contributes to the killing of other people in other countries. the iraqi regime also destabilizes the region, creating a hateful atmosphere toward the western world.

Of course with TB, there is no question whether the threat is real. It is certain.

agreed, however stopping a human from purposefully killing another human seems to me to be more ethical than letting it happen while we eradicate a disease.

i asked:

you admit the the US govt does help pay the bill for TB, how many other countries do too, and how much do they pay?

to which you replied:

I'm not saying it is. It would be quite far if the rest for the world should pay its share, which aperently it doesn't want to.

what is the answer to my question? i think that it may contribute to the question of the US govt ethics. are we truly not paying our share? does someone else pay more? if it is more, what is the ratio to the per capita income? then we can decide who pays their fair share.

 

[Earthborn]

The problem with this aproach is that it amounts to isolationaism.

What is isolationistic about ridding the world of a terrible disease?

In fact, that is the field I work in.

Cool. Respect!

It is not a "one or the other" thing.

Of course not.

Besides, how do you propose we distribute these treatments in Nations which don't want to do so, like Iraq?

Okay, good point. Not that it would necessitate war though.

does rationality necessarily equal ethical?

Doesn't it? Doesn't ethical behavior exclude irrationality?

but funds and actively contributes to the killing of other people in other countries.

I'm sorry but I am a wee bit skeptical of that piece of propaganda. It may be true, but I haven't even seen a likely scenario of how this actually happens.

the iraqi regime also destabilizes the region, creating a hateful atmosphere toward the western world.

And this war solves that?

agreed, however stopping a human from purposefully killing another human seems to me to be more ethical than letting it happen while we eradicate a disease.

Okay, I understand now. You do believe that human caused suffering is an inherently greater injustice than suffering caused by nature, even if humans can end it.

I don't quite understand why someone would think that way though...

i asked:

you admit the the US govt does help pay the bill for TB, how many other countries do too, and how much do they pay?

to which you replied:

I'm not saying it is. It would be quite far if the rest for the world should pay its share, which aperently it doesn't want to.

Wait, that's not exactly how I remember it. Not exactly what is in the other posts either...

You asked:

why is the US the one that should be responsible for spending money on TB for the world?

To which I replied:

I'm not saying it is. It would be quite far if the rest for the world should pay its share, which aperently it doesn't want to.

what is the answer to my question? i think that it may contribute to the question of the US govt ethics. are we truly not paying our share? does someone else pay more? if it is more, what is the ratio to the per capita income? then we can decide who pays their fair share.

Why do you think the question is relevant to the discussion? I don't see it. It doesn't make any difference who pays the most.

 

[c4ts]

The justification of the war with Iraq has puzzeled me. When the anti-war people say that innocent lives are lost because of the US led attacks, the pro-war people are quick to say that more people would have been lost without them. Let's assume that's true... Does that make the war automatically justified?

Let's put it simply:
Doing X will kill innocent civilians
Not doing X will kill more innocent civilians that doing X

Does that mean that doing X is preferable to not doing X?
Before you make a judgement, let's fill in something different for X:

Killing people to harvest their organs for transplant kills innocent civilians
Not killing people for their organs will kill more innocent civilians who suffer from deceases that could be cured with the organs.

Isn't the logic comparable? Doesn't this logic mean that it is justified to kill innocent civilians to harvest their organs? If not, why not?

Suppose we would agree that doing X which kills civilians, is preferable to not doing X which would kill more civilians. Doesn't that mean it would be better to choose to abandon the Iraqis, allowing the Iraqi regime to do what it wants, and using all the resources used for the war to eradicate tuberculoses?

Is it perhaps that we consider people dying because of the actions of other people a greater injustice than people dying of more natural causes, even if those natural deaths are preventable?

Enlighten me...

Hmmm...

Doing X will kill innocents.
Not doing X will kill more innocents.
Don't kill innocents.

Might I suggest not doing X, since if you're not doing X, you're not the one killing the innocents. If the death of innocents is inevitable, you should not put yourself at risk.

 

[Baker]

Re: Re: Ethics question

Hmmm...

Doing X will kill innocents.
Not doing X will kill more innocents.
Don't kill innocents.

Might I suggest not doing X, since if you're not doing X, you're not the one killing the innocents. If the death of innocents is inevitable, you should not put yourself at risk.

I don’t know who this murdering bastard X is but its clear he has to be stopped!

Sorry that was just to tempting.

 

[c4ts]

Re: Re: Re: Ethics question

I don’t know who this murdering bastard X is but its clear he has to be stopped!

Sorry that was just to tempting.

Was that a reference to Citizen X?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Earthborn,

The problem with this aproach is that it amounts to isolationaism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is isolationistic about ridding the world of a terrible disease?

Nothing. What is isolationistic is the idea that we should just let other governments do whatever they want, as long as they aren't directly and immediately attacking us.

In fact, that is the field I work in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cool. Respect!

Thanks.

Besides, how do you propose we distribute these treatments in Nations which don't want to do so, like Iraq?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, good point. Not that it would necessitate war though.

No, that wouldn't. But the point is that if you value helping people of other countries, then you have to face the idea that at some point, you may need to go to war with those countries, even though doing so will result in the deaths of some of those people.

does rationality necessarily equal ethical?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't it? Doesn't ethical behavior exclude irrationality?

I would say it does not. Rationality means acting in a way that is logically consistent with your goals. Your goals may very well be unethical.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

Just stay out of the "game".

Thanks,
S&S

 

[Earthborn]

Might I suggest not doing X, since if you're not doing X, you're not the one killing the innocents. If the death of innocents is inevitable, you should not put yourself at risk.

Yes, I considered that option. The Coward's Wager

Of course if we follow this logic, almost no risky rescue is worth it. It would mean epidemiologists would never dare to enter a area that has an outbreak, if it means putting themselves at a risk. Or fire fighters would not try to rescue people from a burning building if it is certain some people will inevitably die. Not an option in my opinion.

I don’t know who this murdering bastard X is but its clear he has to be stopped!

Okay, Baker... What if you had to choose, would you kick the butt of Bastard SH or Bastard TB?

But the point is that if you value helping people of other countries, then you have to face the idea that at some point, you may need to go to war with those countries, even though doing so will result in the deaths of some of those people.

Okay, I can live with that. However: how do you know that all other options are gone? It often seems to me that wars start, not because all other options are tried, but because people don't want to think about other options any more.

Rationality means acting in a way that is logically consistent with your goals. Your goals may very well be unethical.

Okay, but what if your goals are ethical (whatever that means) isn't it then necessary to act in a way that is consistent with those goals? That would mean that acting ethically means acting rationally, doesn't it?
(Assuming your goals are ethical, ethical equals rational)