Just And Unjust Wars Essay

“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.

In some countries people, do not have the freedom to choose their own path. Many people live in places with so much conflict and destruction that they are force to follow the orders of a political lieder and force to make decision that are not in accordance to what they believe, but they do it because they are loyalty to their country, family and friends Pauline M. Kaurin provide a scenario of a soldiers killing civilian people that they confused with a suicide bomber, then she asked, “When is killing murder and when is it a legitimate act of war? Whom can one legitimately kill in war?” (Kaurin in page 41). She argues that during combat distinction from the enemy and civilian should be relevant to preserve the essence of true morality. In the contrast to Achilles the essence of true morality is irrelevant when he claims that no Trojan should keep their life, he swore death to all Trojan. (book XXI). During a time, war, is important to accept the fact of the situation in the eyes a devastation believing that one fate must be accepted in other to continue living or accepting the consequence and the faith of their own

Lastly, the notion to hurt one’s enemy peoples to force their government into a complete surrender and to minimize the general loss of one’s own troops is immoral. Naturally, the typical ethical standards of war would not justify any use of dehumanization in order for a nation to supersede the other. The Japanese became dehumanized in the minds of American combatants and civilians. The process enabled greater cultural and physical differences between white Americans and Japanese than between the former and their European foes. In Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977), he defines “ the use of force by one nation against another is always wrong unless the latter has already forfeited its basic rights.” Walzer is clearly stating that wars; especially nuclear wars are unjust if they strip away basic civilian rights. In other words, they are ponds in a game of political and nuclear warfare.

In recent years, the self-defense doctrine in several jurisdictions has been changing. Some jurisdictions have started using “stand your ground” laws, which change the traditional requirement that the person being attacked must “retreat to the wall” before using any kind of force. Proponents’ arguments include that the law merely codifies an individual’s deep-rooted right to defend oneself. Opponents’ arguments include that the law creates a “license to kill” and has negative racial implications.

There are no human rights due to killings by private detectives, militants and rich become richer, and laborers or workers do not demand war, but demanded by the capitalist and employers. In excerpt three, "Why the IWW is not Patriotic to the United States", discusses how people who disagree to go to war are being force to join to the war. In addition, he mentioned on his excerpt that, "this war is a business man's war and we don't see why we should go out and get shot in order to save the lovely state of affairs which we not enjoy". People who join the war do not receive anything in return for sacrificing their lives and being away from their families. In excerpt four, "The States" by Randolph Bourne t, discusses that war is the health of the state. His main idea is how the country develops their oppressive power against their own. In last excerpt, "Johnny Got His Gone" by Dalton Trumbo, he discusses war's negative effects and how it bring trouble that affect economics and the

“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us” (Winston Churchill). The grand stake of this country 's freedom is from the soldiers who serve on our behalf as warriors in the United States military branches. The American men and women who sacrifice their lives are liable to our lives in the freedom that we all withhold as citizens and residents of this great country. It is anticipated by the stretch of war, benefits, and terrific reasoning of joining the military for claims on good reasoning, not only on the side of war but, on the side of reaching great and honorable methods of career and life

What is the Just War theory and how did it pertain to St. Augustine? According to Augustine there is no private right to kill. According to Paul Ramsey opposes in The Just War, Christian participation in warfare “was not actually an exception to the commandment, “you shall not murder” but instead an expression of the Christian understanding of moral and political responsibility. One can kill only under the authority of God. St. Augustine argued that Christian rulers had such an obligation to make peace for the protection of his subjects even if the only way to eliminate such a threat was through force of arms. St. Augustine believed that in wars there was a right intention.

In the book Johnny Got His Gun, the main character Joe joined a war in which he didn’t know anything about. Because of the fact that he was drafted into the war, it was one cause of Joe's’ lack of personal investment and knowledge of going into war. All he knew is that he had no choice in entering the war, and that it was immoral to take away lives by sending men into war unwillingly. Joe explains this concept by saying, “When a guy comes along and says here come with me and risk your life and maybe die or be crippled why then you've got no rights. You haven't even the right to say yes or no or I'll think it over. There are plenty of laws to protect guys' money even in war time but there's nothing on the books says a man's life is his own” (Trumbo 110).This quote explains how Joe knew he was against the war and how he wasn’t able to be personally invested in the cause because he was forced into fighting for a cause he didn’t actually

Defensive force justification defenses arise when individuals threaten interests that are weighty enough to justify protection. Someone responds forcibly to protect the interest, and justification defenses measure the response, asking, for example, were alternative means of responding available? Was the response too extreme given the nature of the threat? These considerations are usually translated into particular defensive force justification doctrines that are each based on different interests that can be legitimately protected by force. Thus, self-defense permits one to fight back when an aggressor threatens physical harm.129 The defense of others permits one to respond forcibly when an aggressor threatens to hurt someone else.130 The defense

By valuing noncombatants fully, yet mechanistically dehumanizing combatants, the noncombatants life as far more valuable than the combat itself. It is only through animalistic dehumanization, that the line begins to blur between what does and what does not constitute a legitimate target. When civilians are killed, the general sentiment of “their lives are worth less than those we are fighting for” they have been animalistically

Throughout The Morality of War, Orend argues that there are only two just causes for resorting to war: a war of self-defense and a war of other-defense. With regards to Somalia, the US and its allies justified entering the war based on Orend’s other-defense position. Although Somalia never committed crimes of aggression against another state, arguably, Somalia committed “acts that shock[ed] the moral conscience of mankind” (Orend 91). Walzer states that this is the only time when armed humanitarian intervention is authorized. The only time a state can intervene in a humanitarian scenario, Walzer declares, is when the aggressor state in question is using military force to engage in “wicked and widespread human rights violations” (Orend 91). The death of 300,000 Somalis due to starvation at the hands of struggling power groups is more than enough to justify

“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

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

During the 20th century America has been involved in many conflicts that have led to war or the taking up of arms against other humans and nations. Although the vast majority of Americans have blindly accepted these actions throughout the century, more and more people are seeing war as morally wrong. Reasons for this epiphany are based off of a variety of things and encompass many other aspects related to war and killing examples include: due to moral and ethical principles, objection to war due to strong religious beliefs, the objection to violence due to the same ideals above, objection to the government's use of force, and the objection to the use of weapons of mass destruction. Being a conscientious objector is fairly uncommon in the United States military but there are those who have served have identified as one.

Jus in Bello falls between two broad categories of discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination and proportionality are key factors that must be considered when engaging in war. For example, Michael Walzer argues, “war should only occur between combatants – soldier to soldier and noncombatants should be shielded from harm”. 2 Essentially, this means during times of conflict only legitimate targets should be targeted, combatants should distinguish against whom is attacked and should not include innocent bystanders. Furthermore, Alexander Moseley states, “In waging war, it is considered unfair and unjust to attack indiscriminately since non-combatants or innocents are deemed to stand outside the field of war”. 3 Unfortunately, this can be difficult at times since it may be hard to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant especially since they do not always wear a uniform or carry arms, making it impossible to distinguish between them.