In her recent book, Rosa Brooks concludes that as the tasks being assigned to the military expand, it has become more difficult to define and limit its institutional role. This paper examines ways to understand the teleology of the military as a social institution (i.e. the institutional purpose or ends for which it exists). First, I examine the view that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. I demonstrate that this warrior mindset is inadequate for defining the ends of the modern military, which is more than a mere instrument for doing harm or fighting wars. Next, I critique an approach that says the teleology of the military is to carry out the states responsibility for defending the life of a political community from external threats. I then contrast this approach with a cosmopolitan perspective that argues that the moral purpose of the military should be to protect human rights. I conclude that a morally responsible state should use its military to defend the common good. This means that a states military should defend the common good of the political community it serves. This includes, but is not limited to, fighting wars against external aggression. But it also means that a state has important moral responsibilities to the common good outside the interests of its own narrowly defined political community. Importantly, it has a moral obligation, albeit weakened by various key factors, to use military force to protect the lives of outsiders.
↧