Aquinas

“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.

but if it's for the common good then it is just. Aquinas states it is

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

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

‘Something rather than nothing refers to’ the cosmological argument for the existence of God claiming that all things in nature; ‘something’ are dependent on something else for their existence. As Lucretius puts it in his first book De Rerum Natura, “by observing nature and her laws…her first principle: that nothing’s brought forth by any supernatural power out of naught” hence we arrive at nihil fit ex nihilo ‘nothing comes from nothing’

Proportionality within Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello coincides with the views of the realists of stability within a nation-state. Realists understand the effects of war on civilians. Contrary to Distinction and Military Necessity, Realists recognize that within war there are many casualties and sometimes they are of civilians and those not involved in the war. With terrorist groups of today, a thoughtful realist would say that torture of those captured is sometimes pertinent to safeguard the state. This combats the view of Fair Treatment of Prisoners of War. When the safety of a country is at risk, a realist would agree that it becomes a vital interest. This vital interest could lead to nuclear or biological warfare depending on the severity of the vital interest. Within the No Mean malum in se category, it overtly condemns this. But a thoughtful realist would agree that these steps might be necessary in some situations. A thoughtful realist would agree with one part of the category, which states that mass rape is completely immoral.

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)

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

“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

Murder being defined as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person, especially with malice aforethought”. This actually limits the scope of the commandment, allowing for many of the causes of unnatural death, including capital punishment and war. St. Augustine (345-430) was both a Christian and a Theologian first, and a philosopher second. Perhaps that is why ne believed that the “highest principals are drawn from…Sacred Scripture,” and not from reason, as other philosophers believed. And although he rarely considered himself a philosopher, St. Augustine was instrumental in adapting the works of Plato, specifically the Republic and the Laws [as previously adapted by Cicero] “to suit the requirements of the faith”. Where theologians and philosophers were normally at odds, St. Augustine was instrumental in “making room for philosophy within the walls of Christianity.” His writings used philosophy to defend religion, while simultaneously providing a theological defense of philosophy, to ensure a compatibility between the two. Although best known for what are widely considered to his most important works, Confessions and City of God [where the term Just War originates], this author believes that his Just War Theory, as adapted St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, has had a greater effect on our

This seems to agree with the position of St. Augustine in that; there must be wrongs commited by the side that is fought. However, Augustine specifies that the group must have commited injustice to humanity while Aquinas says that the group must have commited some fault which makes it deserve the war. The condition that the group must deserve to be fought creates a problem of determining the degree of fault that justifies war. Aquinas leaves the decision to the authorities to determine what kind of fault makes a group to deserve being fought. However, Aquinas should have stated what conditions make a group deserve war rather than leaving it to the authorities to avoid people going to war by ill will. In contrast to Aquinas, Augustine was describing a defensive war necessitated by injustices, while Aquinas seems to talk of offensive war. An analysis of the two theorists shows that Augustine is for the idea that war should be avoided at all costs, while Aquinas would justify many

In The Laws of War and Peace, De jure belli ac pacis– Paris, 1625 (2nd ed. Amsterdam 1631), Grotius was responding in part to Desiderius Erasmus' In Praise of Folly, which presented an impassioned and influential statement of Renaissance Catholic pacifism. Grotius wrote: “Fully convinced...that there is a common law among nations, which is valid alike for war and in war, I have had many and weighty reasons for undertaking to write upon the subject. Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of restraint in relation to war, such as even barbarous races should be ashamed of; I observed that men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law, divine

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.

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