What is a potential risk of applying consequentialist ethics in warfare?

Applying consequentialist ethics in warfare can indeed pose the risk of legitimizing morally questionable actions if such actions are believed to lead to a better outcome. In consequentialist ethics, the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes rather than by any intrinsic qualities or adherence to moral rules. This perspective can lead military leaders to justify actions that might violate ethical standards or the principles of just war theory—such as harming civilians or using torture—if those actions are perceived to produce a favorable result, such as a quick victory or the saving of more lives in the long run.

This risk raises significant ethical dilemmas, as it challenges the notion of moral responsibility and accountability. Decisions based solely on potential outcomes can create a slippery slope, where the ends are used to justify the means. As a result, such an approach can erode moral boundaries and lead to actions that, although intended to achieve a greater good, may ultimately result in widespread harm and long-term negative consequences for both individuals and societies.

The other potential answers do not encapsulate the core issue associated with consequentialist ethics in warfare as effectively. Adherence to rules isn't inherently encouraged by consequentialist thinking; in fact, such ethics may sometimes justify breaching rules. Ignoring military strategy is not a