Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations

“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

Background - Historical Context: Some people believed that wars are worth the cost but is the

Walzer’s just war theory is clearly put into contention with the notion of assassination. Assassination programs have often been secretly accepted and employed by states throughout the centuries. Appeal to this topic is often to a higher value such as self-defense, killing a target guilty of war crimes, or removing a threat to peace and stability. On grounds of

3. Opposing forces fought not only against each other, but also for allegiance and support of the civilian population

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 movie Platoon tells the story of a platoon of soldiers during their time serving in the Vietnam War. The soldiers find themselves in a variety of ethically challenging situations, and many make decisions with massive ethical ramifications. The situations vary, from searching a village for enemy activity to deciding whether to save a fellow soldier, and the soldiers are forced to choose between varieties of less than ideal options. The movie’s ethical spectrum ranges from individuals concerned only with accomplishing their mission at all costs to those who express concern for the lives of all people they interact with. The two ends of this spectrum are represented in the movie by Sergeant Barnes as the soldier who values only completing his mission contrasted with Sergeant Elias who attempts to preserve the life and humanity of the Vietnamese people he encounters when possible (Kopelson, 1986). I believe that the decisions exemplified by Elias represent a better way of conducting warfare, while those of Barnes represent a descent into understanding only the immediate objective at the expense of winning the overall war. The following key ethical decision points from the movie demonstrate the superiority of the decisions made by Elias

statement, which connects to almost every war. In the book Under the Persimmon Tree, the main

Nature of war which usually remains unchanged irrespective of changes in environment or war. Four elements of nature of war are; ‘greater political nature’, ‘human dimension’, ‘uncertainty’, and final one is ‘contest of wills.’ The trinity of war, Clausewitz 's famous theory, comprises three basic elements of warfare are ‘people; the second commander and his army; and the third the government, ' essential basis for successful military operations. He describes these three tendencies are must be balanced to

On War is not just a manuscript on of how to understand war; it also provides insight into what Clausewitz thought about the dynamics of human thinking. Similar to what Claxton outlined in Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind, Clausewitz believed that, “knowledge must be absorbed into the mind that it almost ceases to exist in a separate, objective way.” (Clausewitz, p147). In other words, Clausewitz believed knowledge

The assumption that there are a morally significant achievements that can be made in war seems paramount to just war theory. Taking a life without certainty of of the necessity of doing so undermines the value of that life. Because international relations provides such an ambiguous and subjective subject matter to apply just killing theory to, pacifism seems to be the approach most likely to encourage peace.

Combat sports and warfare for spectators are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the opinions of the difference between them are variable on the opinion of the spectator or competitor.

Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum are the three stages of Just War Theory. Jus ad Bellum pertains to the ethics of starting a just war, with the principles being having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. Jus in Bello covers the conduct of individuals at war, with discrimination and proportionality being the guidelines. Meaning, only use force against legitimate targets in war, and only use an amount of force that is morally appropriate. Jus Post Bellum discusses how justice should be served following the cessation of a war, with discrimination being a big

focuses its guidance on warfare in two broad categories: the just cause for waging war,

This essay intends to define and give an overview of the ‘Principles of War', the philosophers that coined these principles and with examples from the various countries that used and have their own perspectives on the ‘Principles of War'.