Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cause and effect on war
The core idea of Just war theory
Principles of just war theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cause and effect on war
Just War
War is a brutal act, often declared by people or countries that are power thirsty or looking to gain more land. Wars result in economically unstable countries, production of wastelands, and deaths of innocent people. With all of these consequences in mind, is there such a thing as a just war? Yes, there are just wars. Even if the outcome may leave countries economically unstable, produce wastelands and kill innocent people that does not mean all wars are fought over meaningless causes. There are several factors that are used to determine if a war is just. These requirements are the right intention, a legitimate authority declaring war, is a last resort, the war is proportional to the offense, and if there is a reasonable chance of success. In order for a war to be just it must follow the Just War Doctrine/Theory. There are two principles to the just war theory. These two principles are “jus ad bellum” and “jus in bello.” Jus ad Bellum is Latin for the “right to war.” This principle is a set of criteria that is to be consulted before engaging in war. The following criterion determines whether or not a war is just. Proper Authority and public declaration is the idea that a war is only just if waged by a legitimate authority. Just cause or right intention, is that the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests but rather to re-establish peace. Probability of success is that there must be the belief that the war will be successful if they enter. This involves weighing the costs and benefits of waging war and emphasizes human life and economic resources. Proportionality, the violence used in war must be proportional to the attack suffered. The last criterion is that war must be waged only as a las...
... middle of paper ...
...causes pain and suffering to all who endure it, those both on the front and at home. However, there are circumstances and situations in which war can be used as a last resort. Many people believe that there is no such thing as a “just war”. After all, what is just about the bloodshed of people? However, the just war theory does not aim to promote war but to regulate it. In a perfect world, war would not exist and political disputes could be resolved through peaceful measures. But, as long as humans have the desire for larger land and more wealth, many will turn to war as a means to gain these material things. It is the just war theory that allows for some sort of ethical code to govern the hell that is called war. The just war theory is a temporary solution for the time being. It is only when the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
In the novel, My Brother Sam is Dead, by James and Christopher Collier, they teach that there are many other ways to solve conflict besides war. War is violent, disgusting, and gruesome and so many people die in war. Families separate in war because of how many people want to be in the thrill of the war and also how many innocent family members die in the midst of war. Lastly, war is worthless and it was caused by a disagreement over something little and the outcome of war is not worth the many lives, time, and money and there are other ways to solve conflict besides to fight. War causes so many negative outcomes on this world that it needs to be avoided at all costs.
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.
Author Aaron Fichtelberg expresses how Engineering ethics and Army ethics are cohesive entities that are treated as polar bodies. The U.S. Army has been ever growing machine fueled by patriotism and what is known as the Industrial Military Complex (Fichtelberg 690,692). The author Aaron Fichtelberg is trying to decipher how private engineers who create weapons for the military are ethically and morally responsible for the weapons they create. In this article the author tries to bring light of the responsibilities engineers have as professionals. An engineer has moral obligations that s/he must oblige by to ensure the general safety of the public as defined by the NSPE Code
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.
To begin, the first part of just war theory states that the two types of just wars are morally permissible and morally obligatory. (McDonald, lecture.) The US’ actions against Japan were morally permissible as evidenced by Japan’s actions leading up to the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima. Although Japan was not yet at war with the US, they were aggravated by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reluctant choice to stop exporting oil into Japan, which was due to the US’ frustration of the Japanese’s occupation of Indochina. On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Hawaii, which brought US into World War II. Several years later as the war began to wane, the Allied forces met in Germany and created the Potsdam Declaration that clearly stated that if Japan did not surrender, “the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”. (“Potsdam Declaration,” web.) At this point in the war, the United States had two options, th...
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.
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 known as a Christian philosophy that aims at reconciling three things. The first is that it strongly advocates that killing human beings is wrong. Secondly, it claims that the state has the mandate to defend its citizens as well as justice. Thirdly, people should protect innocent human life, should defend the moral values. According to this theory, observing these concepts requires the willingness to make use of force.
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.
requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just
...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.
in “Peace and War”. But what is a “just cause”? Everybody has a different definition, and it can be totally subjective. In most modern cultures and most countries, war is accepted as an effective and justifiable way of protecting national interests and achieving diplomatic goals. It could be the just cause, as St. Augustine considered.
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 has been around for centuries. From the time modern civilizations began, war has played an integral part in human history. It shaped the world into the modern world we live in. War has been said to be a great motivator, for example, the Great Wall of China was built to fend off the attackers from the north. However, the negative aspects of war far outweighs any positive effects it might have. The destruction of civilizations, cities and countries, mass killings of men, woman and children alike, the disastrous effect it has on economy and the after effects of war can last for centuries.