JUST WAR

845 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Ethics of war

Even though the just war theory could be considered a consequence of an action or a series of actions, the violence involved in its conduct is and will always be at odds with the basic values of civilization. Nevertheless, the just war theory asserts the act of war may, under certain circumstances, be morally justified. While the theory is divided into several sections, I will only be focusing on the “jus ad bellum” section or the justice to resort to war that concerns the morality of going to war. For war to be just, it must be conducted in order to resist aggression, to prevent the annihilation of a populace, and fought with the right intention, thus affirming a just cause making the just war theory deontological rather than consequentialist.
While some theorists assert the just war theory ignores the consequences of war, which are death and destruction, the theory includes several conditions that prohibit entering a war if its consequences are in any way undesirable. The jus ad bellum section asserts that a war must have a reasonable hope for success while achieving just cause and other significant benefits. If it does not, then the purpose of the war is wrong. Moreover, if a war does accomplish its intended benefits, it will be wrong if the destruction it creates is unwarranted, or greater than the benefits. Also, the just war theory includes a last resort condition that prohibits war if its benefits although significant could have been achieved by diplomacy or less destructive means. In order to support my claim, I will circumvent consequentialism by differentiating between the types of benefits and harms and saying only some are relevant to the assessment of a war while others are not.
Consequentialism considers benefits ...

... middle of paper ...

... it does not do so in a consequentialist fashion, it may consider certain benefits relevant if they result in one way from a war but not if they result in another, and may discount harms if they include certain choices, thus affirming a just cause. However, the just war theory asserts the act of war may, under certain circumstances, be morally justified for going to war making the just war theory deontological rather than consequentialist.

Works Cited

Labaton, A. (Producer) & Schindler, M. (Director). (2002). Religion, war, and violence: The ethics of war and peace [Documentary]. Retrieved from Films On Demand database.
Mosser, K. (2014). Understanding philosophy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Westmont TV. (2013, March 7). What is just war theory, Michael Walzer, Feb. 21, 2013 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f4XuOkMCSA

Show More
Related

  • Military Ethics – Humanitarian Aid in Somalia

    2908 Words  | 6 Pages

    Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...

    Read More

  • War and Massacre, by Thomas Nagel

    881 Words  | 2 Pages

    In “War and Massacre” by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good.

    Read More

  • The Moral Equivalent of War by William James

    1130 Words  | 3 Pages

    War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.

    Read More

  • Just war theory

    1005 Words  | 3 Pages

    The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.

    Read More

  • The Correct Decision of Dropping the Bombs on Hiroshima

    1200 Words  | 3 Pages

    McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Just War Theory And The US Counterterror War

    1003 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • The Just War Theory

    1705 Words  | 4 Pages

    “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.

    Read More

  • Debunking Bin Laden's Just War Theory Claims

    1112 Words  | 3 Pages

    September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.

    Read More

  • Just War Theory Essay

    763 Words  | 2 Pages

    The just war theory can be broken down into three components: jus ad bellum, jus en bello, and jus post bellum. Translated from Latin, these mean “justice before war, justice in war, and justice after war.” In this way, the Catholic Church is able to reconcile Jesus’s lofty teachings about loving your neighbor and causing no harm with protecting the innocent (Massaro 104).

    Read More

  • Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just

    Read More

  • Preventive Vs. Preemptive War: An Analysis

    1338 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • On War by Carl Von Clausewitz

    1315 Words  | 3 Pages

    Carl von Clausewitz, “What is War?” On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 89. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.

    Read More

  • Anti-War Pacifism

    1408 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...oal of such violence is to obtain a greater moral good. But antiwar pacifists maintain that the ends do not justify the means, if the means are murderous. It is a tragic mistake to believe that there are great moral goods that can only be claimed by war and the amount of moral good obtained by war is often greatly exaggerated and inequitable.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of War

    1543 Words  | 4 Pages

    Every day we are surrounded by stories of war. In fact, we have become so accustomed to it, that we are now entertained by it. Video games, movies, and books filled with heroes who once dominated the battlefields. However it is constantly stated, “no good comes from war.” Even famous songs state “war... what is it good for… absolutely nothing.” But what if war was actually necessary? Throughout history, we see examples of the good things wars have brought. War has freed slaves, modernized medicine, brought down evil empires, and even brought countries together

    Read More

  • Peace and Security

    1910 Words  | 4 Pages

    Collective security is one type of coalition building strategy whether global or regional in which a group of nations agree not to attack each other and to defend each other against an attack from one of the others, if such an attack is made. The principal is that "an attack against one is an attack against all." It differs from "collective defense" which is a coalition of nations which agree to defend its own group against outside attacks. It can also be described as a system where states attempt with its use to prevent or stop wars. Examples of Collective defense are NATO and the Warsaw Pact .The United Nations (UN) is the best example at an attempt at collective security. Many nations enter into such an agreement in an effort to maintain the status quo and to secure their best interests. Collective security is achieved when states come to an agreement on the need for same. As a result an international organization is formed under the rules of international law. The collective security organization then becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of hard power by states, unless legitimized by the Collective Security organization, is considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. This idea of collective security was posited by people such as Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson. There are a few basic assumptions as it relates to collective security, including , In an armed conflict, member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation is the aggressor another basic assumption is that each member state has freedom of action and ability to join in proceedings against the aggressor. Also of great importance is the fact that all member nation-states are e...

    Read More

More about JUST WAR

Open Document