Introduction
Soldiers have the moral right to kill other soldiers in wartime regardless of whether their cause is just. One reason is that soldiers are allowed to act in self-defense. Another reason is that peacetime morality is suspended in wartime: war makes things distinctive and what was once morally impermissible gets to be admissible, even celebrated. These and other broadly held, revered perspectives are shattered. There are morals when it comes to justified and unjustified killing of another person within the context of military action.
Theory Explanation
Taking part in war is morally supported in protection against hostility, which is characterized as “every violation of the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of an independent
…show more content…
Augustine and Aquinas focus primarily on ad bellum considerations like just cause and competent authority. Augustine, for example, pays little attention to distinctions between killing soldiers and civilians in a just war. It is only with the later rise of fully formed in bello principles, developed within and adopted by Catholic teaching over the last several centuries, that the weakness of the punitive justification becomes clear” (Cochran, 2014).
The point of Just War Theory is to give an understanding of the correct way to deal with conflict situations. It just applies to states, and not to people. Just War Theory provides a helpful system to people and political groups to use for their examinations of possible wars. The theory is not proposed to justify wars but rather to counteract them, by demonstrating that going to war with the exception of in certain constrained conditions isn't right, and accordingly persuade states to discover different methods for settling clashes.
…show more content…
Knowing this we must remember that there are rules when it comes to war and the taking of life from other individuals. When is it okay to kill another individual while at war? Taking another person’s life is accepted more when the killer’s life is in danger and it is a form of self-defense. It is then considered ethical. Unethical killing in war occurs when snipers attack unexpected enemies or bombs are dropped on unexpected enemies. The Just War Theory provides us with a guide in order to avoid unethical killings. The Just War Theory has three primary goals. Those goals are; understanding that taking another’s life is wrong and immoral, states have the duty to defend their citizens, and protecting an individual’s life and values will require force and violence at times. Though the best possible outcome would be to avoid war; if war is unavoidable there are rules that should be followed when it comes to
2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if
When political leaders frame an unjust war as a morally just war, though, these same soldiers might have second thoughts about their decision to become part of a military machine that is prosecuting an unjust war because their leaders lacked the authority to absolve them from their personal accountability. In this regard, McMahan makes the interesting point that, “What unjust combatants are commanded to do as agents of the state – fight, in an unjust war – is not something that their state, or its leaders, have a claim right to do, or to delegate to others”
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
Murder is a reprobate action that is an inevitable part of war. It forces humans into immoral acts, which can manifest in the forms such as shooting or close combat. The life of a soldier is ultimately decided from the killer, whether or not he follows through with his actions. In the short stories The Sniper by Liam O'Flaherty and Just Lather, That's All by Hernando Téllez, the killer must decide the fate of their victims under circumstantial constraints. The two story explore the difference between killing at a close proximity compared to killing at a distance, and how they affect the killer's final decision.
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...
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.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
The idea of Just War Theory was suggested by Ambrose (Perry, “Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective”), formulated by Augustine, and finally refined by Aquinas. Just War Theory was not made to justify a war (since everyone can say that even total destruction was just), but rather it brings war under control of justice, so that when all nations practice it, war would eventually cease
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.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
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.
wars are governed by a set of rules, designed to prevent, as much as possible, "the use of
... adequate support for the controversy that all killing is morally wrong and that valuing the innocent over the guilty is devaluing human dignity and humanity itself. Moreover, if not all killing is morally wrong, and some quite acceptable, then it stands that death penalty may also be acceptable. In this way, the abolitionist contradicts himself or herself by asserting equal human dignity and worth between the innocent and the convicted that ultimately led to devaluing one human being (the innocent) to another (the guilty). As such, it would only be rational and just to offer aid to the innocent than “to those who are guilty of squandering aid” (Mappes, Zembaty, and DeGrazia 141).
The Politician and the soldier have a common goal; to win the war. But there is a difference in their mindsets. The politician, safe behind his desk, has never experienced the fear and terror of being in battle. He has not seen the blood or heard the screams of suffering soldiers. He has not watched his best friend die in his arms after being hit my enemy fire. He is an onlooker, free to analyze and critique every aspect of the war from the safety of his office. He is free and safe to talk of ethics and proper war etiquette. The soldier, immersed in battle, fighting for his life, can think of only one thing. Kill or be killed. When bullets are flying past his face and mortar shells are exploding all around him, he is not mindful of fighting ethically. Nor is he even mindful of fighting for his country. He is fighting for his life. To stay alive, he must kill the enemy, destroy the enemy. The longer the war persists, the more likely he will not go home alive.
The Death Penalty and War.Full Text Available By: Duner, Bertil; Geurtsen, Hanna. International Journal of Human Rights, Winter2002, Vol. 6 Issue 4, p1-28, 28p