Just War Theory and Pacifism

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 the theory of just war one believes that though war is wrong sometimes the ends justify the means. That is to say, while the idea of going to war is not always the answer; it might have to be if all other options have failed. The pacifist believes that acts of violence are never justified, or are they?

When it comes to any war, soldiers are placed in dangerous situations based on the orders given to them. They are forced to make quick decisions, usually out of their control, to defend their country against its said enemy. The act of killing is in no way ethical, but when done under the circumstances of war, military duty and survival, the wrongness of it can be debated. Consequently, the act of not killing can be unethical as well, since the outcome can be the sacrifice of a fellow comrade. The process of ethical reasoning cannot be used when faced with these kinds of decision because soldiers of war are unable to see all sides of the story, making it impossible to weigh the outcomes.

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.

Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

There is a time where killing is a justified action. Times like this our self-defense, war, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Another great example is in the book, by John Steinbeck, Of Mice and Men. George had to kill Lennie because Lennie’s punishment could have been worse, Lennie is not safe to be around, and George realized Lennie would never get better and the dream would never come true.

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

Assassinations and targeted killings have been topics vastly debated around the world throughout history. As a matter of fact, this matter can be discussed through the eyes of Michael Walzer from a just war theory perspective. This viewpoint can be used in order to explain just assassinations of political and military leaders as well as other individuals. For example, a person can be the victim of targeted killings if their death would result in less future violence or warfare. However, the individual must pose an imminent threat, capture is not feasible, and the operation is executed in observance of the applicable laws of war. Yet the burden of proof and responsibility resides with those in highest power since it is their duty to maintain order among everyone below them. As a result, only those in power can decide who is assassinated and for what reason. All arguments against this belief can be annihilated by the fact that targeted killing will lower the chances of further combatant and civilian casualties. Ultimately, just assassination or targeted killing are blameless if the outcome will create less vehemence.

A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their

The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. The circumstances of Just-War Theory must be of: Last Resort, Legitimate Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Right Intention, Proportionality, and Civilian Casualties.

One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.

To begin, I have to admit this discussion forum has challenged me. Whenever I think of killing, my brain automatically thinks the word bad. But, the readings have made me realize that assassination or targeted killing, as Statman refers to it, “is not always morally wrong” (White 502). Statman states, “"Thus, people generally fail to notice the moral problem with many instances of killing in war even when they are fierce objectors to the death penalty, because they view the situation of war as different from the non-war context” (Statman 512).

In this paper I will be analyzing and critiquing the theory of pacifism. This theory is the belief that war is never an option under any circumstance. Even if a nation is being attacked a pacifist will believe that retaliating is morally wrong for a number of reasons. Such reasons behind pacifism are supported by issues of morality and what the pacifist themselves feel to be morality. I will provide three arguments to the pacifist way of thinking.

Many of the core beliefs of conscientious objection derive from the teachings or beliefs of pacifism. Pacifism has been a system of thinking and living for hundreds of years, and, in the 20th century many objection and pacifistic movements have sprung up all around the nation, more so than in any other time. Pacifism and conscientious objection in the United States have been moral issues that have fallen under question due to the belief of the participants that killing, war, and the act of violence is wrong and immoral.

The process of carrying out a comparative view of different scriptures of the various religions when it comes to the topic of war demonstrates that there is one central rule that applies when it comes to killing and the repercussions that comes with it. For instance, the followers of the Buddhist religion firmly believe that people who participate in war or any form of violence often end up trembling because life is sacred and it is supposed to be revered by every individual. This teaching is well stated in the book of Dhammapada, which explains that, “A person should put themselves in the shoes of their other counterpart, so that they can understand that killing is in total violation of the law” (Hogan 957). Furthermore, these scriptures clarify the fact that a person should not compel another individual to take part in an activity that will end up killing and taking away innocent lives.