“Fearon on this article, attempts to provide a clear statement of what a rationalist explanation for war is, and to characterize the full set of rationalist explanations that are both theoretically coherent and empirically plausible. “Page 380”. Fearon in his attempt to convince the audience about his assumptions and argument regarding war, he used the following terms: Anarchy, human expectations and gains at the aftermath of the war, nations unwillingness to reach certain treaties and agreement, human’s often under estimation and over estimation and miscalculation of the military might of the opponents are all factors contributing to the emergence of world clash. The strength of the theoretical argument presented by Fearon was his used of world leaders as perpetrators of the world conflict, they wage wars wherein they never physically and personally pay a price but the good number of victims are the military, citizens and tax payers that suffer …show more content…
Very nice argument, but what is it that may tempt these rational leaders to be involved in these wars was not very explanatory. Upon all the given arguments by the author, no mentioned was made as to what is it that may prevent these rational leaders from utilizing diplomacy or whatever means of communications to avoid such costly, misguided, miscalculated wars often fought and constantly keeping our planet under national emergency everywhere you go. Great article and great arguments that lack supplication of materials needed to put the world under one umbrella where nations will stand up for each other and no against each other. Some solutions to avoid wars, were very minimal in the article but nonetheless, a very powerful and insightful
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
In both of the instances, the two authors cannot speculate of what could have happened. These speculations cannot be cause for war or even effects of the war. It is not a plausible explanation.
It is a prevailing assumption among both philosophers that having an accurate belief of our self and the world is important. On the topic of free will and moral responsibility, Strawson argues for the pessimist viewpoint while Susan argues for the compatibilist viewpoint.
Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that...
...nt variables. It can deal with the interests within a country and interests out of it. It can occur due to ideological differences or religious differences. It can occur due to a power grab, and in the cases of a failed brinkmanship, can be a complete accident. Each war throughout history has its own unique set of reasoning for occurring, which makes studying the causation of war so fascinating: in every war you study, you are guaranteed to find so many unique characteristics that it possesses.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
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.
In Thayer’s article, he makes an attempt to incorporate Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory into the international security studies. The article tries to answer a central question that what are the implications of Evolutionary theory to realist theory of international security and in what way can peace be achieved if warfare is part of human nature? This paper agrees with Thayer that Evolutionary theory provides a scientific theory foundation for realism and is an ultimate cause for war and ethnic conflicts, as well as the assumption that origin of war is intrinsic in human nature as part of their evolution history. This paper will also suggest that a balanced structure of the world could contribute to temporary peace. But it need to be noted that the theory is also limited since Evolution theory could not fully explain many other forms of security problems like civil wars and terrorism. To review Thayer’s article, first, the paper will briefly explain how Evolutionary theory act as an ultimate cause for realist theory in terms of two human traits: egoism and domination. Following that, the paper will discuss the implications of Evolutionary theory to international relations. This paper will also evaluate the theory by comparing it with Waltz’s and Gleditsch’s theory on peace and war. Finally, it will conclude the paper by summarizing main points.
" This evidence supports the claim that militarism was an underlying cause of the war because as countries wanted to expand their strengths, other countries saw this as a threat and wanted their nation to grow greater which caused tension between each
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
The first concept is Clausewitz’s Trinity of War which is comprised of “…three categories of forces: irrational forces…; non-rational forces…; and reason or rational calculation…” [Bassford, pg 205]. The irrational forces are hostility and violence that originate mainly with the people and are the impetus of a political solution that may result in war. The non-rational forces refer to chance and probability which are primarily...
“War may well be the worst way imaginable to create larger, more peaceful societies, but the depressing fact is that it is pretty much the only way” (Morris 1). To elaborate, war sadly is the only method that works, even though that a lot of things happen that are unfortunate. Some examples of war being necessary are The Revolutionary War, World War II, and The French and Indian War.
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)
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging
War is something that nobody wishes for but unfortunately, the leaders of some superpowers believe that it is necessary when in fact all they are doing is killing the world. The effects of war has had on mankind have had a profound effect as to how the world acts today. Although man has changed drastically, hatred is something that has managed to stay constant no matter where one goes; one could come to the conclusion that hatred is everywhere and there is no escape from it. Unfortunately for the world, this hatred is passed down as the years pass by, thus confirming the Golding’s statement, “Man is inherently evil”. Saying this, humans are the masters of their own fates and history shows that clearly humanity is taking advantage of this fact. Throughout history, man has passed its evil ways from generation to generation and as a result, the world is slowly killing itself because of the hateful doings of mankind.