Argumentative Essay: The Case Of War Is Not Justified

In the United States the cold-blooded murder of one citizen to another is considered cruel, psychopathic, and illegal. The thought of murdering a fellow human being is, justifiably, discriminated against and shunned. Since murder is officially condemned wrong what causes one to believe that in the case of war, murder on a large scale, that this happening can be considered acceptable, at some points cheered on even. If murder is not justifiable, then war is not justifiable; but in the case when the lesser evil must dominate the greater evil in order to maintain peace, then this scenario of war may be considered more just than any alternative.

My first question in the case is what gives a person the need to justify war in the first place? There are a lot of reasons to need to justify the mass murder of thousands of people. One possibility could be that with the knowledge and

morals that a human has in possession, we know that warring is wrong, so must find a way of easing the conscience and still obtain those goals by warring. On a small scale, this scenario is like a child that wants the cookie from the cookie jar. On the inside that child knows that taking the cookie would be wrong and that their guardian would not be pleased with them… but the temptations of that sweet cookie keeps clouding the child’s mind… eventually they will go through their mind looking for each excuse as to why they took the cookie, if they took it. That child couldn’t ask their guardian because they know that they would say no. Then a thought comes across, “maybe if I don’t ask and just take the cookie without permission I could say that I did not know that I was not allowed to take it and get out home free.” The child uses an excuse to justify why he took the cookie to settle their mind and know they won’t get in trouble. Warring is kind of the same in the way that one must settle their mind and make the war justified in order to feel right and in peace with themselves by convincing themselves that the war is in the right and for the people, whom are judging that man that provoked this war. If they can justify it, then it could be right by the people as well. The use of justifying war maybe used by rulers to keep the mind of the people at peace so that a war may be right and supported by the people. In order to have a war you must have the will of the people behind you, and the people should feel that their war is just and fair. Without the citizens support the nation has not soldiers and no support to be able to create and standby the war. One might use these reasons to justify a war that the nation has caused or is going into, but in some cases war is or seems inevitable in order to help those in need.
In the case when a body of innocent people are in jeopardy and have no way to protect themselves, like in the case of the holocaust during World War Two, the war called by the nation trying to protect those people is inevitably just. During the holocaust the only way to solve the situation and maintain peace was to dominate the greater evil with the lesser evil, the countries warring against the extermination of the Jews as the lesser evil and the Nazis as the greater. Since the side that did not start the war did not necessarily want a war and on the contrary were trying to protect the innocent, this way the war was just on their side. Though in this scenario war is more just than in other scenarios, because killing people is wrong, this version of war is still not completely just.
In this case pacifism is only supporting the side hurting those who are innocent. George Orwell makes a statement about pacifism in his writing “Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other” (Orwell 509). Orwell had once been a pacifist himself but
soon changed his point of view before he began to realize that pacifism did not necessarily portray the message that those under it wanted to portray.
When one must defend themselves against an enemy and did not intend war in the first place, then this form of war is more just. Although since there is still killing of fellow human beings in this form of war, it is still not purely just.
Supposing that there is no killing or no wrongs down during some sort of war, some way where these things are settled in a humane and civil matter then that war may be considered just.

I suppose it is the context of the war that determines it was just or unjust. The war against cancer is a strive for the greater good… but then again one still must kill cancer cells in order to end the terror that has been caused so maybe that would still be considered unjust if you think about it that way… but I would call that over analyzing. In the long run a just war can happen by fighting for the greater good rather than getting there through the means of hurting, and terrorizing others. It seems a little bit unrealistic but if you want a true solution on how to truly conduct war justly, I would say don’t conduct one at all. War doesn’t and shouldn’t have to be inevitable but through years and years of creating a culture of killing people it seems that it has become such. If the world could break from this barbaric clutch, then we wouldn’t have to think about the issue of conducting a just war at

all.