Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics war is moral
Is just war theory out of date? essays
Ethics war is moral
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics war is moral
Morality is hard to define, and nearly impossible to agree upon; however, when it comes to war, there is a single “widely accepted moral theory” that reaches beyond borders . Just war theory, a doctrine originally attributed to the Christian theologian Saint Augustine , postulates that certain circumstances can lead to the justification of war, particularly if war is used to prevent even greater atrocities from occurring in the future. In its fundamental charter, the United Nations even articulates that every state has the right to go to war in its charter. In its broadest definition, just war theory declares that war may be justifiable if the states involved have both jus ad bellum, or just cause, and jus in bello, or just conduct in war; …show more content…
Indeed, as prior U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote when describing the war on terror, “this will be a war like none other our nation has faced.” However, these changes bring the morality of this new face of war into question, and the justification of drone use and other modern military tactics involved in the war on terror is a subject of much debate. Focusing on U.S. involvement in Yemen from 2010-2015 as part of the war on terror, this essay will argue that, while the U.S. has met most of the criteria of jus ad bellum, the methods the U.S. has employed to counter terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda have ultimately violated the principles of just war theory, even when analyzed from the perspective of modern warfare within the framework of the current global …show more content…
It’s important to acknowledge that yes, drone strikes have brought about a completely different type of warfare, one which the original thinkers behind just war theory probably could not fathom. As put by Yemeni activist Farea al-Muslimi, “When there is a normal war, people can hide, or they can stay away from the military – they can make choices and be careful, but when drones come, you just don’t know when you’ll be next. The fear is incredible.” Drone usage comes at a great cost; the psychological effect of constantly being on guard on Yemen’s civilians are perhaps a new aspect of war that should be considered when considering the behaviors considered ‘just’ during
Controversy has plagued America’s presence in the Middle East and America’s usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) contributes vastly to this controversy. Their usefulness and ability to keep allied troops out of harm’s reach is hardly disputed. However, their presence in countries that are not at war with America, such as Pakistan and Yemen, is something contested. People that see the implications of drone use are paying special attention to the civilian casualty count, world perspective, and the legality of drone operations in non-combative states. The use of drone technology in the countries of Yemen and Pakistan are having negative consequences. In a broad spectrum, unconsented drone strikes are illegal according to the laws of armed conflict, unethical, and are imposing a moral obligation upon those who use them. These issues are all of great importance and need to be addressed. Their legality is also something of great importance and begins with abiding to the Laws of Armed Conflict.
In addition, Byman argues that “drones have devastated al Qaeda and associated anti-American militant groups... and they have done so at little financial cost” (Byman 1). In the article, Byman compares the financia...
Brenda Shoshanna once stated, “All conflict we experience in the world, is a conflict within our own selves.” This quote recognizes how much conflict influences our everyday lives and personality. The wise words were especially true for Gene, the main character in A separate peace, who let his battles with other characters and the society of his time become his own internal battles. In John Knowles’s novel, A separate peace, all the types of conflict are shown through the main character Gene.
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.
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 just war tradition is typically evoked when discussing the decision to launch a war (justice of war) and when evaluating the conduct of forces during war (justice in war). But the tradition does not explicitly specify principles for assessing justice after war, nor does it discuss state obligations upon achieving military victory.”
In the article, “Is Obama’s Drone War Moral?”, Matt Peterson argues that the lack of transparency surrounding the number of drone strikes and resulting casualties undermines Obama’s administration efforts to justify the targeted killing program. He states that the administration refusal to detail individual strikes makes it impossible for the public to assess the morality of the program. He attempts to support his points by examining the standards for carrying out violence in self-defense and by explaining how the policies and practices put in place by Obama’s administration fails to uphold these standards. This paper will evaluate the strength and weakness of Mr. Peterson’s analysis to determine whether the conclusions the author draw are
The drones would take care of the strikes and that would be that. No soldiers would be hurt or even die while the drones were doing their job. DeBrabander then makes a statement, ". . . with less skin in the game, the less worried their loved ones will be . . .," momentarily makes readers believe that the drones do serve a great purpose. However, through effective comparison DeBrabander leads his readers to logically infer that the drones must also be responsible for the death toll that they will bring with the airstrike. It then becomes clear to the reader that the ". . . drones will be tempting for our leaders . . ." our society feels that once we start using drones, we would be heading down a dark
America’s involvement in the Vietnam War was undeniably unjustified. Although the U.S properly declared war and had a decent chance at success, it can be argued that their intentions were not to purely prevent communism. The Just War theory also states that just causes of war includes retaliation of aggression, tactical strikes, and specific interventions, none of which the U.S had as a reason to enter the war (Hu, 22). The U.S. believed that if South Vietnam was to fall under communist control that it would cause a chain of reaction in surrounding nations to adopt a communist government. However, the Theory of Aggression employed by the Just War theory clearly states
War changes everyone involved in one way or another. For some it physical changes them because they get physical deformed, but for most people, war changes their mental state. War changes people’s mental state because of the duties that they have to perform and the experiences that they have to see. Tim O’Brien shows how the characters mental states changed throughout the book, because of the war.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
For years now, the Syrian people have endured many attacks, many of which including the use of supposedly eliminated chemical weapons. The U.S., with aid from the French and British forces, launched missile strikes against Syrian weapon facilities to halt any further use of Chemical agents against the Syrian civilians. Though the attacks may seem unjustifiable since the U.S. initiated the attack, the missle strikes were in fact justified due to the fact that its intentions were to help the Syrian people. By the standards of the Just War Doctrine, the attacks by the U.S. are justified.
Likewise the point of view is similar of that in "In the Shadow of War". A young child Omovo is in the Second World War, with his father, who does not think Omovo is old enough to understand war. As suggested by him saying “It’s bad for children to listen to the radio about war”. This makes Omovo curious to see why his father is hiding him away from the war. Omovo with his own eyes wants to find out why people are being hurt, and in the process nearly gets himself killed. For instance he sees a young woman tormented by a group of soldiers. He wants to help the woman out and so follows the soldiers to the water's edge where the woman's body is disposed of. The soldier's spot him and chase him back to his home, where he just makes it inside.
Terrorist do not claim one specific country, but instead they are broken up into groups that are situated all over the world. With America’s war on terrorism, they essentially declare war on many innocent civilians and every country that host a terrorist cell. With that being said, there is no just way to say what America is doing is right or wrong. One thing for certain is that, it does affect many civilians. With America declaring war on Afghanistan, assuming that they are the culprits for the September 11 attacks, they are putting many innocent lives in danger that is already suffering from social, economic and political issues. (Sjoberg 2008), wrote, “in addition to the continuing civil strife, the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure, and widespread live mines… Emotional identification with people in such a desire situation in terms of economic welfare, healthcare, and education availability suggests a need for empathy and a politics of care.” (Why just war needs feminism, pg.11). While these types of conflicts happening in the world today, it makes you wonder why theologians and policy makers have not revised the just war theory. These conflicts are not being fought on a normal battle field like times in the past. Instead, they are being fought all around us, in the middle of the streets in our cities and towns, in the middle of
A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a military personnel violates the laws and acceptable behaviors of a war. Despite all the violence in a war, a soldier shooting another is not considered a war crime because it is not a violation to the laws and practices of a war, and it is considered just. A war crime is defined as a “violations [violation] of the laws and customs of war” (“War Crimes”), and are attacks “against civilian populations, prisoners of war, or in some cases enemy soldiers in the field” (Friedman). War crimes are typically committed with weapons or by uncommon, cruel, devastating military methods and are “…Committed primarily by military personnel” (Friedman). There are many different types of war crimes one can commit, including “murder, ill treatment…murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity” (Friedman). Originally constructed as international law by the London Charter on August 8th, 1945 and further developed by the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907 and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes are aggressive, unacceptable and unjust actions performed by military workforce that occur during a war.