The current war poses serious threats to innocent citizens and even causes deaths of many people. In addition, the state majorly responds to terror by torturing innocent suspects. This is a complete violation of human rights because the impacts of war affect all citizens of the country, both innocent and guilty (Brandt, 1992). According to Nathanson (2010), an act of war or terrorism may be considered ethical if it is combined with distributive justice where only the guilty population is targeted. The current war and response to terror is therefore unethical because it only allows those who have suffered large-scale violation of human rights to continue suffering (Bauhn, 1989). From critical analysis of the current war, it is evident that there are other means that can be used to solve the problem that is causing the current war. According to Consequentialism ethics, an act of war or terror is morally justified if it is the only means through which the existing problem can be solved, and if what is desired cannot be achieved through any other way that is less costly and ethical (Bauhn, 1989).
This ethical view makes the current war and response to terrorism unethical because there are indeed other ethical ways through which the current problem can be solved. In addition, the government has the capacity to ensure that only the guilty and jailed. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, once said that emotion cannot be used in ethical reasoning (Nathanson, 2010). Therefore, the government should not use emotions to judge that the current war and response to terrorism is justified. Otherwise, the government should arrange for dialogue with all the countries involved in the current war as an ethical way of ending it. In addition, it is important to conduct thorough investigations in order to ensure that the exact people who have committed acts of terror are jailed.