Arguments Against Just War

Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

In all of Human history, only 8% of that time has been completely at peace. From 150 million to 1 billion people in total have been killed by war. That’s 150 million families at least who have had their loved ones ripped from their grasp. This is far too many. War is unnecessary and barbaric. In “just and unjust war” by Howard Zinn the complexities of whether or not a war can be called just or unjust are debated. Peace can be achieved. the three crucial steps toward making world peace are education, open communication, and human rights laws must be strictly enforced.

including our adversaries. Truth is too big, and we are each to limited, to think

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace and safety. The just war can only be waged as a last resort requiring that all reasonable non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war can be just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. An array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare.

According to the Just War theory, just war is separated into two domains. First is the motivation behind entering war, and second is the means used during warfare (Hu, 2). The first judgment signifies justice of war, or jus ad bellum that evaluates the terms of a just versus unjust war. The second signifies justice in war, or jus in bello, which essentially measures whether or not the ends justify the means. The relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello are independent of each other, meaning that even if the war passes the judgment of one area, it does not imply justification for the other

than Russia so that there is not an unnecessary onslaught. The fourth subcategory for declaring a just war is to have a right intention. An example of going to war over a right intention would be to correct a suffered wrong, an example of this would be an event happening like Pearl Harbor. A right intention cannot be used for purely a material gain. The next criteria for declaring a just war is to use proportionality. Proportionality is using a similar sized force or attack strategy as your opponent. An example of this would be if the United States and Mexico decided to go to war against each other and there has just been small arms fire at the border. As long as one force is not going “overkill” or dropping nukes on a country that does not

The conditions of a Just War are that the choice of engaging in war is the last option and the probability of success is to be weighed. The war must be fought by a recognised legal authority, (the

In war every combatant, just or unjust, poses a certain type of threat. On the two opposite ends of the spectrum a combatant poses either a culpable threat or an excused threat. If a combatant poses a culpable threat he poses a threat of wrongful harm to others and he is not justified, premised, nor excused in his actions (McMahan 159). If a combatant poses an excused threat, he poses a justified threat of harm and is therefore fully excused for his actions.

combat is between combatants only. A perfect example of this occurred in the Gulf War;

War is a useless and a ferocious way to settle political problems between two nations that will only cause an infinite number of casualties and deaths. They give absolutely no advantage to both nations yet it is still being used so settle problems. They have existed ever since people realized how power can be important; however what they did not know is that if put in the wrong hands it can cause pain and misery to all the people involved.

There are other people that argue that, they are fighting for what is right. Which is a great argument to have, but it is one thing to argue that on a personal scale but when whole nations get involved that notion becomes a little more hazy. In Alexander Moseley’s article Just War Theory he quotes Michael Walzer, a American political theorist and author of books such as “Just and Unjust Wars” and “Spheres of Justice”. Walzer’s view of killing and the justification for killing anyone is this: “...Modern warfare dissolves the possibility of discrimination: civilians are just as necessary causal conditions for the war machine as are combatants, therefore, they claim, there is no moral distinction in targeting an armed combatant and a civilian

The just war theory has been considered one of the greatest oxymorons. How could an act that involves so much bloodshed and destruction be considered just? And how could peace be achieved through such violence? It is said that “All who take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Aquinas 484). Does that then mean that all wars should be condemned along with all who partake in it? According to St. Thomas Aquinas, not all acts of war can be justified; however, there are certain instances when a state should take up arms against another that threatens the peace and the safety of any group people. Yet, the battles and wars waged must not be of malicious intent, such as to humiliate, revenge, or simply destroy the other side. Therefore, it is the right of a nation to protect its people against an enemy and to take military actions if a direct threat is made against them, and if those military actions are executed solely for the purpose of the restoration of peace and the protection of those in danger, then any blood shed shall not be on the hands of those defending, but instead they shall hold the tools needed for peace.

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

The Just War Theory is a doctrine founded by Saint Augustine which has helped bring much discussion and debate to wars and the morality to fight in them. Wars and fights between people have gone on forever and are not perceived to stop anytime soon so it is important that some people thought about when and why they should ever fight. For many years Christians never part toke in this fighting due to teachings of the Bible and Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Saint Augustine would be one of the first to talk about how a Christian could be a soldier and serve God at the same time. Through this thought we would receive the Just War Theory which gave a set of requirements for someone to partake

Yes, I see the difference between how the video’s author defined the list compared to the official statement. In the official list there is the preamble and different articles involved. These things are all involved when it comes to human rights. These things help when it comes to Just War Theory, human rights, and United Nations.