Abolishing War Argument Analysis

To abolish means to formally put an end to a system, practice or institution. Abolishing war means to get rid of active of violence between 2 or more states. The word “abolish”, in my opinion, does not give the phrase enough power; it does not hit hard enough. Imagine “terminate war” or “exterminate war”, it makes you realize more what people are arguing over.

Abolishing War? An appeal to Christian Leaders and Theologians is on the pro side of the abolishing war argument. The document argues that we need to find a non-violent alternative to war. It uses the “teaching of Jesus Christ which summons Christians to renounce war and to seek with the wider and religious and human communities to develop alternatives to protect the innocent, to restrain, to restrain aggressors and to overcome injustice”. This specific article

seems to me to a bit vague, and it shows that maybe deep inside even Christians know that abolishing war is impossible. It is deal and they way Jesus sought the world to be but it is not capable.
The concern here is that the criteria for just war is not being used correctly or at all in this time. The article states that there is a “discernable unease with applying the just war theory “ and Christian authenticity. They say that now (as in 2002) is the right time because it is under God’s judgment. Their objective is not to abolish war immediately but to raise awareness, initiate research, and show the non- Christian public that war is “immoral and unnecessary”. The article ends with a hopeful statement, “let the twenty-first century be for war what the nineteenth century was slavery, the era of abolition”. The argument concludes with, if slavery was abolished, eventually so will war.
The Case for the Abolition of War in the Twenty-First Century is on the pro-side of this on-going argument but with more of a realization. They state that war is necessary if we are to live worthy lives. It mentions that if we abolish war, what exactly are we abolishing. Not all wars are exactly violent like the total war and cold war. “ The army now becomes an institution” and like I stated earlier means to abolish means to put an end to an institution. War is recorded is every event in history. Both articles argue that abolishing war is ideal but the second article states that it won’t happen. We have the idea of war all wrong. War is mean to follow the just war theory and in these days we do not meet the criteria.
The just war position in the first article is that the just war theory has always been “intellectually and spiritually vulnerable and politically inconclusive. There is not proof that the wars that went on in that times completely satisfied jus ad bellum and jus in Bello. So to say that the just war theory makes war okay as long if it’s followed has no contingency. Last resort is subjective because there is no way to prove that there really is no other way. Proportionality is also hard to decipher because, for example, Americas army is larger than many other states against us. The position in the second article is that the just war is not easily understood. The just war theory is only a controlled description of war. “History creates the logic for war and perpetuate the logic of war.” They state that the just war theory is persuasion to an “ethical response to political violence”. The just war theory depends on making sense of why war is okay and makes sense. It supposed to give clarity.
The history of peacemaking in the Catholic tradition reflects the religious meanings of peace, tied to positive virtues, such as love, and to the personal and social works of justice.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the Just War Doctrine stating, “The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties”. This, I believe, goes along with the second article. Just war theorists combine a moral hatred towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. Just like the second article explains, war is necessary of we want to live worthy lives.

In The Challenge of Peace, catholic bishops state “Catholic teaching has always understood peace in positive terms. In the words of Pope John Paul II: "Peace is not just the absence of war . . .. Like a cathedral, peace must be constructed patiently and with unshakable faith." The first article mention John Paul II “War never again”. We could be at peace but a political war can still be

happening.
Robert McNamara explains in the film The Fog of War, The human race will not eliminate war in this century, but we can reduce the brutality of war—the level of killing—by adhering to the principles of a "Just War," in particular to the principle of "proportionality." The first article elaborates on how Christian leaders who support the concept of just war are finding it difficult to see how proportionality could be met in this century along with last resort and non-combatant immunity.
In The Secret War, we see that the new way to take out states against us is drones. Drones do not fit the criteria of the Just War theory. Last resort, Proportionality and Probability of Success are all out of window. Drones are not the last-resort; they are just an easy resort. Proportionality is also invalid because one drone can take out hundred of people. Probability of Success is definitely inconclusive because most of drone attacks are mistakes and they take out hundred of innocent people. The point of just war criteria is for insuring the safety innocent people.
My view on abolishing war is that I will be ideal but impossible because humans are violent by nature due to different perspectives and battling for territories. I do believe that violence is not the answer and there must be other ways to come to an agreement between states. I believe in John Horgan’s argument that war is an invention, like cooking, writing or marriage. He thinks humanity can abolish war, in part because we abolished slavery. It would be impossible because that would mean that almost all nations need to become democracies, the gap between rich and poor nations must greatly diminish, women must have half the political power in the world but Horgan would say that I am wrong. It is also impossible because war is also a business. It’s profitable in many ways, so many private corporations. To countries that sell weaponry, war is profitable. To those who anticipate significant advantage after the war, war is profitable.