Aristotle 's Philosophy On The Morality Of War Essay

In his essay “The Moral Equivalent of War”, William James discusses the presence of war and militarism in society. It argues that in order for military feelings to be abdicated, a substitute must be introduced. The author supports this central point through historical evidence and reasoning.

The Just War Theory is a set of criteria that are used to judge whether a war is morally justifiable. It was St Augustine in the third century that formulated the Just War theory, and was formalised 10 centuries later by Thomas Aquinas. There are seven criteria by which a war can be judged to be just. Among the rules are Just Cause – there must be a very good reason for going to war, such as protecting your country from invasion. There should be a formal declaration of war by the legal government. It has to be the last resort and all other alternatives must be exhausted. There must be a reasonable chance of success and great care must be

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

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

Protestors would stand outside of the White House and chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” in reference to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s ever-seeming inability to tackle what was beginning to seem like a crisis. By the summer of 1967, fewer than 50 percent of polled citizens (US) said they supported the president’s conduct of the war. This negative view continued until the conflicts end, and those that partook in the fighting were shunned by the society they ultimately fought to protect. Saint Thomas Aquinas (b. 1225 AD) established a series of principals titled ‘the Theory of Aggression’ in his book ‘Summa Theologicae’ that can be placed adjacent to every conflict within Western history, serving to imbue the covenant of warfare in its entirety.

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.

In the world today, ideological differences are the root causes of many conflicts between individuals or nations and if allowed to aggravate, it becomes the brush strokes for a canvas that turn out to be the portrait of an all-out warfare. However, before countries engage in militarism, it is prudent that the leadership takes pragmatic steps towards a peaceable resolution because the misconception among architects of conflict is to further private agenda for their personal benefit. In a blind quest for gratification, these benefits are an opportunity cost for the larger society who is the unfortunate recipient of the ensuing anarchy. Nothing is fair in war; casualties caught up within the crossfire

The ostensible contradiction between war and morality has resulted in serious moral questions that many ethicists have tried to answer. Is war ever just? Is war just an irremovable part of human nature? Is some war just? The world constantly finds itself in a state of some form of war, and as such it seems that assessing the morality of war is essential.

The ethical issue that I have chosen to discuss is war. This issue has been a common thing all around the world, since the first ever war in 2334 BCE (History, 2008). War can be started for a number of reasons, such as; Economic gain, territorial gain, religion, nationalism or revenge (Owlcation, 2015). Wars can be fought in all different ways and has the potential to shape and influence the future dramatically. War and civil wars can have severe effects and outcomes, they can be detrimental to the people, buildings, religion and living conditions of countries and states that are part of the war, whether by choice or not.

'In war some sorts of restraint, both on what we can legitimately fight for (jus ad bellum) and on how we may legitimately fight (jus in bello), are morally required'.1 However, recent theorists also add the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus post bellum) to the main two categories of just war theory. From Christian perspective the function of the JWT was simply an excuse of making war morally and religiously possible writes Michael Walzer. He also agrees with its defendants, that it made war possible in a world where war was, sometimes, necessary. JWT is therefore to be used as a sort of moral rule-book from which legitimate

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.

“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

Aristotle believes, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good” (Aristotle 624). The military personnel in the perspective of war trying to aim at some good by killing the criminals. The outcome of the military personnel killing the enemies to going to aim at some good. On the other hand, when the criminals where killing innocent people on the street, their virtues were going to give them never-ending happiness.

The comprehension of the term ‘total war’ has had great significance towards the understanding as to how wars are fought, affect society and differ from other conflicts. The main issue that arises is conclusively defining total war and is continually differing between both historians and military combatants alike. Roger Chickering defines states “total war is distinguished by its intensity and extent. Theatres of operation span the globe; the scale of the battle is practically limitless” all the while adding “total war requires the mobilisation not only of armed forced but also of whole populations” This definition, while not quintessential is a good starting point for a definition due to its broadness and acceptance of the idea of the incapability to fully mobilise a society’s entire resource. David A. Bell states that it is often defined as ‘a war involving the complete mobilization of a society’s resources to achieve the absolute destruction of an enemy, with all distinction erased between combatants and non-combatants’ . However, he notes the limitations of such an idea including the inability for societies to meet such criterion, in particular, the ability for a society to completely utilise its resources towards the war effort. Ultimately, Jeremey black, while not giving a conclusive definition for the term, total war, does acknowledge different definitions by various individuals distilling many of their arguments and consequently outlining main characteristics of

War must be waged in accordance with the purpose of establishing justice, expressing the “right intention”.