Constraints such as the avoidance for a soldier to intentionally harm a civilian is one of the basic principles which combatants from both sides of the war are expected to obey. Since, Jus in bello provides equal responsibilities and constraints for soldiers fighting on both (just and unjust) side of the war, under these circumstances,
“Is war ever justified?”, is a question with its solution first originating from Christian theology. Saint Augustine was the first individual to offer a theory on this, and introduced the “Just War Theory”, which was later revised by Saint Thomas Aquinas, creating just 3 criteria to be met in order for a war to be just: “War needed to be waged by legitimate authority, have a just cause, and have the right intentions”. Since then, the “Just War Theory” was been used by many to justify their wars, however, there many other factors that were not taken into consideration that could be used to justify a war. I feel that war is justified and will be looking into points that are for the justification of war. War is justified when there is a “just cause”, and when it is used as a “last resort”.
Honor and safety were also said to be the only two reasons for a war to be just, and that war itself is not honorable, and should be avoided. He also presents an outline of criteria for just wars in the Book III of On the Commonwealth, namely: (a) a proper motive; (b) due announcement and proclamation; (c) demand of restitution (Cicero’s ideas are mainly political in nature, implying that the government, or the commonwealth, had the just reason to go to war for two main purposes; that is: (a) to right a wrong that has been perpetrated against it by another state, or vengeance; and (b) to protect itself from destruction, or self-defense (Neste,
Due to the schism between, “hawks” and “doves” in foreign policy, the pursuit of peace is perceived as just and the pursuit of war as unjust. This dynamic aims to prevent the injustices that can come out of war, but it ignores those that persist in peace. The simplification of this relationship fails to consider that the motivations and aims of war can help to justify its righteousness and create stability that upholds principles of justice. The conflict between these virtues of justice and peace are universal in international relations, but they can be examined specifically in the case studies of Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War that chronicles the war among Athens and Sparta and their allies and Francisco de Vitoria’s On the American Indian, which examines the Spanish conquest of Latin America. Both Athens and Sparta in the
In 4th century BCE China, military strategist Sun Tzu recognized the need for justice and moderation in war (Griffith, 1971), while Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle discussed the need for a just cause (Sorabji, 2006). In ancient Babylonian times the lex talionis was the means of gauging proportionality between crime and punishment. Today, this ethical dilemna is succeeded by ‘just war’ theory for the moral guidelines regarding the ‘right’ to wage war, via jus ad bellum and jus in bello (Forrester, 2005). Rather than fall into the quagmire of justification as to right or wrong regarding the ethics of warfare, and fall foul of the dualism associated with both just and unjust combatant’s right to kill. Or the contradictions found within
Most religions doctrinally and dogmatically oppose wars. The New Testament, the Quran and the Hebrew scriptures call us away from warfare. But many people like Richard Dawkins who is the famous atheist would disagree. According to him, “ if there was no religion, there would have been no 9/11 attacks, no Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no troubles in Northern Ireland.” When it comes to war, many people believe that religion (e.g Islam )is the main reason for wars because it has particular resonance in the case of the most familiar yet most misunderstood religion. The concept of Jihad ( Holy War) has been used by many political and religious groups over the ages in order to justify various forms of violence.
Introduction Can soldiers be justifiably ignorant to moral consequences of war? Invincible ignorance is Francisco de Victoria’s defence of soldiers in war. It is a defence of morality involving an inability to change or understand decisions. The opposite of that is vincible ignorance, which can be changed or understood. A Victoria-described leader is held to higher standard of morality with exponentially more access to necessary informative sources.
“We all say not war, we are all for justice and peace. But sometimes in order to maintain peace, armed action is necessary. But we hope it won’t be the case"-by Silvio Bersuconi. This quote was said by former Italian Prime Minister who spoke about war. War has been a problem since human was created on this planet.
Some people still wonder if war can be justified by its principles or cause. It can be argued that war can be justified due to the principles of freedom and justice that soldiers are willing to die for. However, many argue against this saying that war should be avoided at all costs due to collateral damage and the massive loss of innocent life. In the book My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier, Tim faces the biggest dilemma of his life when he has to decide whether to side with his brother who believes in the principles of war or his father who believes war should be avoided at all costs. When the novel comes to a conclusion, Tim decides that he is neutral and does not agree to either argument due to the irony contained within the deaths of
This is an act of injustice, it is unfair to the innocent people who were killed. Rationality and Reasonableness also come into play here. When we talk about human beings we mean rational beings and “treating them as ends-in-themselves" means respecting their rationality. The reasonableness of a person would not allow him/her to manipulate and use people for his/her purpose, no matter how good and noble the purpose maybe. If we use people for our purpose it defeats the idea of the purpose being 'noble ' in the first place.