Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
On roman military matters pdf
What did St Augustine say about war
Core idea of just war theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: On roman military matters pdf
Christian Teachings on the Just War
The just war theory is guidelines to countries about the implications
of war.
The theories about just war began in the 4th century BC with
Aristotle. During 1st-4th century AD, most Christians refused to join
the Roman army because they felt that war went against Jesus'
teachings on loving you enemies. The Christian pacifists also believed
that joining the army would violate one of the commandments, 'Thou
shall not have false idols', as the enrolment involved an offering of
incense to the emperor. This changed in 312 AD, when Constantine
became emperor. Christianity was legalised in 316AD.
In the 4th century AD Christians joined the army. This had to be done
because if Christians were against the army, there would have been
barely anyone in the army as most were Christians, it was a political
necessity. This was when the distinction between personal and private
morality came about. In order for Christians to be in the Roman army,
Jesus' teachings only applied to private morality, so that the
Christians did not feel guilty for going to war, because their public
moral were applying.
Augustine introduces the just war theory into Christianity and in the
13th century Thomas Aquinas set down the first 3 conditions of the
modern just was theory. Further conditions were added later on.
Today, there are 8 conditions of just war. Some are jus ad bellum,
meaning what you do in preparation for war and some are jus in bello,
what your conduct is during war.
1) It must be declared by a supreme authority. If anyone wanted to
begin a war, wars would be continuous; this is something you do in
preparation for war so it is jus ad bellum.
2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if
the war is just before war has started. There is only one just cause
to go to war, to defend oneself.
3) War must be the last resort. If the situation can be resolved by
2. “In the eyes of a strictly utilitarian world the obvious contradiction between these acts and military expediency gave
Among some of the subjects that Aquinas tackles in On Law, Morality, and Politics is the dilemma of War and Killing. Aquinas sums up the legality of war through three criteria: that the war waged is done by a legitimate authority, that the war is just because the enemy has done something grossly wrong, and the intention of the war is to solely right the wrong. Also we see Aquinas say that the killing of an innocent person is justified if God will's it.
say that due to the way Jesus reacted at his arrest and the fact that
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.
part in official argument about war" (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
Since the beginning of humans, some sort of conflict ahs arisen between them. Every culture has had a different take on war. There is however a general consensus that war is necessary. Those who question war are looked upon as deviants. It was hard and is still difficult to appose war now. Rise Against’s song Hero of War and Wilfred Owen’s Dulce et Decorum Est can be compared through the problems with war, the unnecessary glorification of war, and breaking from what society thinks of war. Through both works of art there is a general consensus on the terror of war.
Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? Think about what this means. This means that laws, regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral they may be, must be followed with no better reason that they are the law. To the thesis that we are obliged to obey even unjust laws, I will argue that the standard objections to Civil Disobedience, given by Singer, are incorrect
A2. Whatever has the capacity to consciously and radically change the community in which it lives is morally superior to whatever lacks this capacity.
The theory of Just War can be found back over centuries to the philosophy of St. Augustine and beyond. Augustine was one of the first important figures to be challenged by the concerns raised by justified warfare. Christianity, despite significant prosecution, grew out of the Roman Empire, which was Pagan. The evolving Christianity was fundamentally pacifist, giving rise to the refusal of Christians to fight in the Roman army; violence was against Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek, never seek revenge, not to defend themselves and to forgive seventy times seven. Similarly, they could not justify fighting for a pagan empire, and since initially, they were expecting Jesus to return soon, warfare was not considered an important priority. However, when Emperor Constantine became Christian, he made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Up until this point, Christianity remained pacifist. This was the problem that Augustine was faced with; justifying warfare for a Christian empire.
“I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
4. Could you use either a basic duties argument (right and wrong are defined by preexisting
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
Four, injustice does not lose its power to cause dissention when it arises in one person. Five, if injustice does not lose its power