Just War Theory Of Violence

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

One important theory within International Relations shows a moral aspect on how to conduct war. This theory is called Just War Theory. Just War Theory is a doctrine of military ethics from a philosophical and Catholic viewpoint. This theory consists of two parts: Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and Jus in bello (right conduct within war).

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)

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.

This theory would categorize the wars as just and unjust, respectively. The Just War Theory has its roots in philosophy and has four major components. For a war to be considered just, the country must have the right to go to war, have a just cause, with just intentions, and it must be the last resort. These guidelines are set into

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.

When use of force is abused and is used simply for violence, then it allows for the escalation of violence. Use of force is something that can easily be abused, especially in war where the environment is one where morality can quickly become warped. Due to this, people can become very violent if the situation gets out of hand. For this reason, it is important that the common good is the main motivation for the use of force. In such a dark atmosphere, people have to remember why they are there.

Counterterror War, Neta C. Crawford questions the moral justification of the George W. Bush administration’s war on counterterror is just. Crawford argues “that it is extremely difficult to fight a just counterterror war given the nature of terrorism and the realities of contemporary warfare.” She does not think that the just war theory can be used in war against terrorists since that kind of warfare is “transformed”. With the way that terrorists work and the advanced technology and firepower today, war is not how it used to be many years ago. She argues that just war theory is useful, but has its problems in counterterror wars.

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

What exactly is a just war? By definition, it is a war that is morally or ideologically justified, by either society or an international authority. The just war theory states that war must be a last resort at all times, there must be a large chance of success, and the benefits must outweigh the cost of the actions. That is it, there must be“...no other option other

Although is can be argued by many that war under any circumstances is never justifiable, the just war theory combats this ideology by presenting a manifesto that clearly states the criteria needed to conduct an ethical operation while holding the nations involved to the highest of ethical standard without compromising the integrity of the people involved in the

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.