have a mixed view on war; pacifistic and the ‘Just war theory.’ A pacifist is someone whom considers that no matter what war is never justified and follows the word of Jesus Christ “You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:38-39). The other predominant category of Christian views is the belief in ‘Just war theory.’ Many arguments exist
Is there a justification for war? Can wars be morally accepted? From the beginning of history, war was an influential factor in shaping the present and future, and sometimes the past, and the moral aspect of a war took a large space of philosophers thought. The early show of the just war theory was with Plato, however, the first solid establishment of the theory was by Augustine in the 4th century, followed by another arise of the theory in the Islamic doctrine but from different prospective, then
Smith Philosophy 310 27 October 2014 Word Count: 2556 Jus Ad Bellum Principles and Just War Just war and unjust war have been to focal point for argument between philosophers and military leaders alike for many years. Whether or not war is just remains at the forefront of both military and political leaders’ minds, and as war changes, the ever-evolving definition of just ant unjust war looms overhead. Citing World War II, for both the United States and Nazi Germany, the principles of jus ad bellum
“The American war in Vietnam was, first of all, an unjustified intervention, and it was, secondly, carried on in so brutal a manner that even had it initially been defensible, it would have to be condemned, not in this or that aspect but generally” wrote Michael Walzer in his book Just and Unjust Wars. Throughout history there have been a fair amount of wars fought, that are not considered justifiable, and the Vietnam War is just one of them. Under the Just War Theory, a war is justified when the
Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition," deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. Many people have different views on whether or not "just war" is a defensible cause. Some believe
According to this theory, it is just to enter a war if there is just cause, lawful authority, right intentions, proportionality, reasonable chance of success, and if it is the last resort. The genocidal mass slaughter of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Rwandans in an approximate 100 day period would most definitely be an example of a just cause to intervene. In relation to humanitarian interventions, the just cause necessity requires that only in cases of massive
there to here, that is, from just war theories that embraced the punishment theory to its current erasure. The second being whether the punishment theory may nevertheless be right. For decades, just war theorists realized that wars could be waged to fulfill desire, punish or avenge wrongdoings. Currently, this punishment theory of just cause has evaporated from international law, which recognizes only collective and individual self-defense as legitimate cause for war. But revenge and retribution
disagrees with the just war theory and believes that the idea that there can be just wars should be abandoned. Even the phrase, should be abandoned, according to him. “Just War” implies that there are wars that are just and that the church has the authority to discern which they are, although he states otherwise has happened. “No authoritative Christian body has ever, prior to the commencement of fighting, decreed that one side or the other is justified in warfare on the basis of just war criteria. Instead
It is a widely held consensus that initiating a war is morally wrong, but responding to an aggressor is morally justifiable. However, anticipatory warfare remains a gray area. In Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars, he discusses three models of anticipatory warfare. The reflexive model occurs when a nation is about to be attacked and they decide to respond before they feel the impact of the attack. The preventive war model lies on the other end of the spectrum. In this case, the nation strikes
In Michael’s Walzer’s “Just and Unjust Wars,” he discusses jus in bello in the context of what is referred to as ‘the war convention.’ This term is used for “… the set of articulated norms, customs, professional codes, legal precepts, religious and philosophical principles, and reciprocal arrangements that shape our judgments of military conduct…” – Walzer, 1977, pg. 44 The war convention is meant to protect people’s right to life and liberty, and consists of two principles: The first principle