If wars were declared, innocent people would be threatened; therefore, some may argue that wars are unfogivable. Given the devil destruction of wars, those conflicts carried on by arms are conditional. Only defensive war should be righteous, but even the defensive war should be considered as the last resort. According to various religious views, though peace is usually the mainstream from different religious perspectives, defensive wars seem to be a moral exception. Should wars can be avoided, the peace is always a satisfactory result. Some ancient but enlightening religious pacifism upheld the peace under any circumstance. According to the New Testament, it’s advocated to “love” your “enemies” so that you can be decent “peacemakers”; and …show more content…
For everyone has a baseline, trespassing the final line can easily infuriate the country who has endured for long. Albeit aggressive wars are unbearable as “wholesale robberies and murders”, Christian stance toward defensive war is obvious. “Peace Society” is a daydream since we live in a real world, but “war should only be defensive”. “As soon as the invader is disarmed, his life should be spared,” for the invading sovereign is diabolic rather than the “private soldiers”. Confucian Analects explicate the condition prior to wars is education. What’s more, Hebrew Bible “teaches” the “valour of the defensive soldiers is one of the noble fruits of religious faith” since that’s the principle of “God”. Moreover, the guidelines in Islams also give us instruction of war that is conditional. “Fights is the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for “killing a person” in the first place resemble the situation “killing the whole people” and “God does not love transgressors”. Defensive war was the only last resort, but countries cannot be belligerently and vehemently wave national flags from their vehicles. The Hinduism admits the valor to attack, stating that “May your weapons be firm to attack, strong also to withstand.” However, this belligerence is inordinate because attack may inflict hatred and vengeance. Similarly, the principle of ISIS, which can be found via the
Mo Tzu was a well-known Chinese writer, philosopher, military strategist, and the founder of Mohism, a school of thought that preached “universal love, or the love of all human beings” (Austin 253). In Against Offensive Warfare, one of three works written by Tzu in opposition to the civil wars taking place in China, he criticized man’s ability to praise offensive warfare and commend it as righteous, while condemning lesser acts of civil crime and violence and denouncing them as unrighteous. He argued that all acts of offensive warfare and aggression against a fellow human being should be considered unrighteous and that no distinction should be made between the two. As a military strategist, Mo Tzu was no stranger to the atrocities of military conflict and adhered to the belief that war should be avoided unless fought in self-defense. Mo Tzu believed that war was sinful and the immeasurable sacrifice both of lives and resources were a waste that would eventually destroy the world (Osborne). War is a horrible and perilous affair that shatters the lives of millions and rips apart the threads that knit our society together. It separates families and divides countries and leaves only death, disease, and destruction in its wake. While war is always terrible and should be avoided at all costs, sometimes war is necessary to restore order and freedom in a lost and broken world.
According to Catholics for Peace and Justice, “the just war tradition begins with a strong presumption against the use of force and then establishes the conditions when this presumption may be overridden for the sake of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights.” The Just War Theory states that there are seven conditions that must be met in order for a declared war to be a true and just war. The first of these values is Just Cause. This means that force can only be utilized to correct an aggression or evil. If the war is being declared out of spite or to seek revenge, the war cannot be defined as being just. Also, there must be a formal declaration of war and warning with spoken terms of what the aims are and what this war will plan to fulfill. The next criterion is Comparative Justice which means the injustice suffered by one party can NOT significantly outweigh the suffering from the other party. For example, if the initial attack o...
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
by God you will see that God was opposed to war, violence and any form
The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists hold that all of these criteria must be followed for a war to be just. I will analyze The Just War Theories most debated arguments, self-defense, pre-emptive strikes, and the killing of innocents. In the second half of this paper, I will briefly explain Pacifism, and provide a counter argument for each Just War argument.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat and may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. The Just War theory involved women and children or the treatment of prisoners. The Just War had undergone a revival mainly in response to intervention of nuclear weaponry. The Just War Theory possessing good intention constitutes the condition of moral activity, regardless of the consequences envisioned or caused, and regardless, or despite any self interest in the action the agent may have. When just war is engaged, the military ...
There are two terms referred to in the reading “preventive” and “preemptive” ware and the two pretty much are one in the same. Preemptive war is more of the idea that if a country knows that there is a threat, and wants to combat it by anticipating the attack by attacking first. An example of this form of warfare, is if the United States knew that Canada was going to attack the United States Border, the United States would attack first so it could eliminate the threat. While preventive is when you can for see a future attack or a threat that still has not formed, but can be eliminated by attacking before the threat is fully formed. Now since the two forms are very similar, an example of preventive war would be if the United States got worried
Generally, war results from arguments between nations over things like land, power, money, or religion. War over religion contradicts religion itself. In the passage titled “On War”, James Boswell states, “That amiable religion which “proclaims peace on earth,” hath not as yet made war to cease.” If religion proclaims peace on earth, then war goes against those morals.
Every day we are surrounded by stories of war. In fact, we have become so accustomed to it, that we are now entertained by it. Video games, movies, and books filled with heroes who once dominated the battlefields. However it is constantly stated, “no good comes from war.” Even famous songs state “war... what is it good for… absolutely nothing.” But what if war was actually necessary? Throughout history, we see examples of the good things wars have brought. War has freed slaves, modernized medicine, brought down evil empires, and even brought countries together
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by man. There are many reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party, war is the last remaining option. Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in fourteenth-century Spain, that “War is a universal and inevitable aspect of life, ordained by God to the same extent as the sky and the earth, the heat and the cold. The question of whether to fright is not a significant moral question because fighting is constant; the minor decision not to fight this war will be made only in the context of knowing that another war will present itself soon enough because it is simply always there.” (Peter S. Themes. The Just War)
This paper will provide an opportunity for dialogue within a small group setting on the idea of how Christians who are to model Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, in loving our enemies, not to kill, along with the presence of defending humankind by force; more specifically, the idea of just war. This study group will meet over the course of five weeks for one and half hours each.