Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Just war theory essays
Strengths and weaknesses of just war theory
Strengths and weaknesses of just war theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Just war theory essays
Since the beginning of time, Christians as have struggled with the issue of whether war and violence can ever be justified. The just War Theory was created by early Christian’s leaders, which provided a set of conditions offering various principles that political leaders should stick to in a time of war and violence. However over time, the nature of war, weapons, and nations have drastically changed, and have people questioning whether the Just War Theory is actually wrong. The theory was conjured up during an era when war was fought differently. In society today this theory can be argued as being unrealistic. The current conflict happening in our country is the debate whether the US should invade and use nuclear weapons on the war in Syria …show more content…
Injustice generally involves the act of unfairness and violation to the rights of people. People all around the world have suffered from injustice. Injustice does not involve one topic but variety; it can involve racism, violence, war, sexism, gay marriage, religion, poverty, and so on. Social Justice In Catholic Social Teaching is a broad-spectrum term, and includes three types of Justice. Social justice pertains to the Gospel message of Jesus to the organization, procedures, and regulations of society in order to guarantee the human rights of each person. According to the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Social justice implies that persons have an obligation to be active and productive participants in the life of society and that society has a duty to enable them to participate in this way.” (Thompson, Pg.611-612). An example of social injustice would be religious discrimination against people who are not Christians or racial discrimination. The three types of social justice are commutative, distributive, and …show more content…
He believes that the use of such powerful weapons will not ensure noncombatant safety, as well as the radiation that would hang around in the air after would go against the Just War Theory principle of proportionality. Along with the Archbishop, a good amount of theologians have also criticized the use of this theory in modern times because of the strong ability of modern weapons. It is being said that the Just War Theory criteria of proportionality and protection of noncombat are not being met with modern wars. For example, noncombat deaths in World War I were 10 percent of the deaths, while in moderns wars like the United States invading Iraq and the conflict going on in Syria, with noncombat deaths range from 80 to 90 percent. (Rynne, 2016) The Archbishop, theologians, and Christians are bringing light to this topic and asking the question if Catholics should continue support the Just War Theory due to modern advancement in militarization and
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...
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
Just War Theory has three components jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Each of the components can explain what makes a war just and moral. Jus ad bellum or just initiation of war is achieved if a state has a just cause, uses armed conflict after all other means are exhausted, if it has a right intention to go into war, if there is a chance of success, and if it the ends of the war are equal to the means of war. The
“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.
The idea of Just War Theory was suggested by Ambrose (Perry, “Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective”), formulated by Augustine, and finally refined by Aquinas. Just War Theory was not made to justify a war (since everyone can say that even total destruction was just), but rather it brings war under control of justice, so that when all nations practice it, war would eventually cease
Everyone regarding social justice should feel this way because we are all born with morals that allow us to feel bad when others are hurt, so we should act on that feeling that it is bad. As humans, we need to act on these morals in order to do our duty to help others and to be good to them. Socratic Questions 2.
The Just War Theory has been shaped over the centuries by historians and philosophers. However, the most systematic account of the Just War Theory was formulated by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologicae. According to the Just War Theory, the moral reality of war is divided into two parts. Wars are judged twice, first with reference to the reasons nations have for fighting and secondly, with reference to the means they adopt in the actual fighting. (Walzer, 21) The first judgment is referred to as jus ad bellum, or justice of war. The second judgment is referred to as jus in bello, or justice in war. Jus ad bellum provides guidelines for assessing whether a war is just or unjust while jus in bello outlines proper conduct in war. Jus ad bellum does not imply jus in bello. Likewise, jus in bello does not necessitate jus ad bellum. It is possible for a just war to be fought unjustly just as it is possible for an unjust war to be fought justly.
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 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.
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
The Just war theory is a doctrine that has been studied by all sorts of leaders, religions, and especially military leaders. Basically it is a doctrine that consists of all sorts of military ethics of war and broken down into two parts, Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Just ad bellum is consisted of 5 parts, the first part is legitimate authority and what that means is that the people who are making the decision of war are recognized officials and understand the strategies of war. The second reason is for a just cause, having the right reasons for going to war and understanding that violent aggression is not the plan. The third is that the last resort is going to war, and being able to understand that before a country starts a war that can be solved in less violent ways. The fourth option is prospect of success, yes winning the war is a success but how many lives can be lost and still count that as a success. The final option is the political proportionality and that is when the wrong of war is proportionally less then the wars cons. I believe that if all non violent options of Just ad bellum have been tried and were given a fair shot and the only viable option is to go to war then going to war is acceptable. But if all non violent option shave not been exhausted and war is nothing but a quick decision this can be considered wrong and
Institutions that affect our social justice views can include religions, schools, our government, social networking and media. Our own identity of ourselves is highly impacted by the restrictions and judgments that come along with these institutions. Whether you believe in it or not, you are impacted directly by the views from these institutions. The views of these institutions can be a determining factor in your decisions, because if you decide the rebel against these views you can look like an outsider. Social justice defines what should be done in order the live the perfect American Dream, be socially acceptable, fulfill life to the fullest and be an active member of society.
Augustine illustrated on the prevailing Roman doctrine of justum bellum and the Old Testament stories of wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as demanded by God. Augustine aimed that fighting on behalf of the Roman Empire was a Christian obligation since the empire was Christian. Augustine maintained that this was fighting on behalf of God against God’s enemies, just as Israel defended itself against God’s enemies in Old Testament times. Augustine’s thinking has backed greatly to the discussion of what makes warfare justifiable right up until the modern day.
Critically evaluate feminist reformulation of just war theory. Sjoberg (2006) defines ‘just war’ to represent ‘a discourse, rather than a moral framework’ in which we can ascertain the philosophical, religious and political criteria necessary for the use of force or participation in violent conflict, to be considered legitimate from a moral standpoint (Hun, 2014: 77). Inconsistencies in just war theory render it highly criticised by pacifist and feminist critique, with the end of the 1980s signalling the birth of substantive feminist critique of just war. Feminist critique of just war centres around 2 fundamental problems within the theory: the claim that war is an ‘undeniable fact of modern life’ and can at times be considered a precondition for a ‘permanent peace’ (Hun, 2014: 77); and, that just war is an abstract rejection of militaristic nature, and of war as a whole, based on the assumption that feminist critique must be anti-militarist by nature
Social Justice to me means that everyone has the same opportunity to experience life in such a way that they can have all their needs met and feel fulfilled as people. This may sound really simple, but it is actually a very complex idea that I am going to try to break apart and try to explain here. The first part is everynone. When I say everyone, I mean every person in existence. Whether they are a citizen of the United States, a refugee from Syria, or an astronaut, no longer in the atmosphere. In essence, everyone counts. Second is opportunity. Opportunity is the set of circumstances that make an outcome available and the ability to capitalize on those circumstances. Third is experiencing life. This refers to the ability to move through their life from beginning to end with the freedom and agency to make educated choices about things that affect them. The final part is having needs met and feeling fulfilled. This is probably the most difficult one to explain effectively. To illustrate this idea I look to Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. I assert that in a socially just society everyone should have their needs met starting with the most basic (the ones on the bottom) to the most