War and morality: A call to stand against violence

The title of this article is taken from Edwin Starr’s song 'War' recorded in 1970. The lyrics continue by answering this question with 'absolutely nothing, stand up and shout it.'
The unprovoked and illegal war against Iran by the Zionists, killing 160 schoolgirls and their teachers, was a war crime and an act of terrorism.
All of us with a voice should 'stand up and shout it' if we are to have a world which is not run by bullies and terrorists. The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.'
When states engage in warfare that deliberately targets civilians, spreads fear, or uses disproportionate force to achieve political goals, such action aligns with this definition.
In these cases, the distinction between warfare and terrorism isn’t blurred and raises serious ethical concerns about whether all modern warfare should be regarded as large-scale acts of terrorism.
Throughout the history of philosophy, many influential thinkers have condemned war as morally unjustifiable. Although their arguments arise from different traditions — religious, ethical and political — they share a common belief that war violates fundamental principles of morality.
Leo Tolstoy argued from a Christian perspective that war contradicts the command to love one’s enemies, making all violence morally wrong.
This view is reflected in his novel 'War and Peace', which I read many years ago, where the character Pierre comes to see war as senseless and deeply inhumane, recognising the suffering it causes and rejecting the idea that it can be justified by glory or political ambition.
The English philosopher Bertrand Russell criticised war on both rational and humanitarian grounds, pointing to the immense destruction caused by modern weapons and arguing that war doesn’t resolve conflicts.
He supported diplomacy and international cooperation, as does Oman.
The 19th-century American philosopher Henry Thoreau argued that individuals have a moral duty not to participate in unjust wars, maintaining that involvement in violence is wrong. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, strongly criticised war as a violation of moral law. He argued that war treats human beings as means to political ends.
He envisioned a future of 'perpetual peace' based on international law and cooperation. Despite their differences, these thinkers share key objections to war.
They emphasise the sanctity of human life, the damage caused by violence, and the importance of peaceful alternatives.
A similar view can be found within Islamic teachings, which place strict limits on the use of violence. In Islam, harming innocent people is forbidden, and violence is only permitted in specific circumstances such as self-defence.
The Quran states: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” (Surah Al Baqarah 2:190).
Another verse reinforces the sanctity of human life: “Whoever kills a soul... it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.” (Surah Al Maidah 5:32).
Together, these teachings emphasise restraint and the protection of innocent life. Judaism similarly upholds the principle that innocent life must be protected.
The Torah commands, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), establishing a clear prohibition against the unjust taking of life. While Judaism recognises the right to self-defence, it maintains that force must be morally justified and limited, reinforcing the importance of safeguarding non-combatants. People of the Jewish Faith who follow Judaism rightly condemn the unprovoked Zionist war against Iran and the genocide in Gaza.
Opposition to war is a recurring theme across both philosophical and religious traditions. Whether grounded in reason or faith, the central message remains consistent: violence against innocent people is unjustifiable.

Karim Easterbrook The writer is a Former Cambridge School Principal and Author