Oranges and apples, both fruits, but yet both are totally different in taste, appearance, texture, and scent. However, they both grow on trees, both are round and both while tasting different are somewhat sweet. Like just war theory and pacifism, the two concepts are different yet similar at the same time. In this paper, I will attempt to show you, the reader how two opposing views on violence can be different; and at the same time share ideas and principles to make them similar. While the idea of just war theory and pacifism are different they share some of the same characteristics and fundamental concepts. In the theory of just war one believes that though war is wrong sometimes the ends justify the means. That is to say, while the idea of going to war is not always the answer; it might have to be if all other options have failed. The pacifist believes that acts of violence are never justified, or are they? According to our text there are in fact two types of pacifists. Those who feel that violence is never the answer and those who feel that violence can be justified. On pacifism, Lackey (2014) explained that some pacifists are willing to resort to violence in certain acceptable situations. Those situations are vague but a few examples are …show more content…
On the contrary, most proponents are men of strong religious conviction. According to oregonstate.edu the idea of just war theory is the basis of belief where nations try to come to the justification of waging or entering a war by legal and moral means. When one breaks down the concepts of just war theory it parallels much of what a pacifist believes; just war theorist do not want to automatically go into a war of conflict there are certain criteria that a country must satisfy before waging or entering a conflict. Some of the ideas one might have and some not, all of the criteria when one or all are met justify war and the use of violence as a last
Just war can be traced back to the pagan teachings, which was later refined by Christian leaders to justify their followers into going to war (Cahill, 2005). St. Augustine was identified as the first to offer his view on war and justice, viewing war as a necessary evil if peace and justice were to come and labeling it as something practical when conflict arises. Later on, St. Thomas Aquinas revised Augustine’s version and added three more conditions: the war had to be waged by the proper authority, the cause had to be just, and the intentions had to be right. All of these additions and refinements lead to the same just war theory that we are familiar with today (Baer, 2006).
Wars are fought for many reasons and I back then it use to be that to territories went to war to gain land for their country and that was the usually justification. People also go to war because they believe in different things and they see each other as “less than human” so they be. The reading stated the war is a last resort option for most. Some important principles of a just war are the non-violent options must be considered first. Also war cannot be declared unless it is by someone with authority such as the President. Another thing mentioned in the reading is that a just war can only be fought if it is for the right reasons. A just war should only occur if there is a chance of success because a lot of lives, money, and resources can be wasted if the war is not won. Although war itself is not peaceful the whole point of a just war is to re-established peace. Also violence in war must be equivalent or near equivalent to the injury suffered, for example a country cannot just use a weapon of mass destruction to win a war. Civilians should never be involved in the conflict of war and soldiers should avoid killing them.
This paper will define and determine the criteria for warfare, argue that neither the 9/11 attacks nor the resulting counterterrorism reactions take after the conventional standards of Just War theory: these events cannot be portrayed as just under the guidelines of jus ad bellum or jus in bello. More importantly, the events should not be classified or regarded as a war. Rather, these related acts are criminal offences that were toss under the label of warfare due to the American interpretation of 9/11 as a ‘first strike’ tactic which in turn prompted a military response, setting in motion an international standard. The resulting ‘war’ has arguably been a series of violations of international law.
Overall, there will always be droughts whether during war it is best to be pacifist or anti-pacifist. We can forecast that it is best to be anti-pacifist during any war that we may be faced with. This is what’s best because talk about pacifist will always aid the enemy in various ways from encouraging them, making us easy targets, and the preparation of it. We have to be aware that sometimes war is the only answer to defeat evil and establish peace. Before people start judging how bad war is and inhumane they should consider how many evil people we have gotten rid of before they were able to do more harm. It will always be up to the people weather or not they should be pacifist or anti pacifist during a war but we can conclude that pacifism will always aid the
Michael Kelly mentions in his article that “pacifists see themselves… on the side of higher morality” and believe that they are on the right side of society. With Michael Kelly’s statement, many pacifist argue that they are moral in the eyes of society and do not need violence. Moreover, he adds that pacifists argue that “violence only begets more violence.” This proves a point that in certain times violence is not the key. Yet, when an deadly attack is being occurred answering it without violence will not solve the overarching issue of being attack.
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
Pacifism covers an array of views and there are many subcategories of pacifism, some of which I will cover, but the main definition of the word pacifism is the opposition to war and/or violence. Perhaps the most famous use of the word pacifism is found in the “Sermon on the Mount”, where Jesus claims the “peacemakers” are blessed. In this passage, the Greek word eirenopoios is translated into Latin as pacifici, which means those who work for peace. One common and simple argument for pacifism among religious groups or god fearing people is the argument that god’s revealed words says, through the bible, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Regan explains that just war theorists have developed two major ideologies to understand the just war conduct. First, the principle of discrimination that just warriors may directly target people participating in the enemy nations wrongdoing but should not target other enemy nationals. "The enemy nation's wrongdoing justifies the victim nation's use of military force will necessarily involve targeting enemy personal engaged in the wrongdoing (Regan, pp 88)." The principle of discrimination requires military combatants to wage carefully the effects of their actions in general people. It is very important notion that Regan explained about ordinary civilians because many conflict, civilians become a victim from both side. The principle of discrimination
The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the
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
The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. The circumstances of Just-War Theory must be of: Last Resort, Legitimate Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Right Intention, Proportionality, and Civilian Casualties.
One of the most influential songs of all time, “Imagine” by John Lennon, envisions a world of peace; “Imagine there’s no countries…nothing to kill or die for…imagine all the people, living life in peace.” During the 1970’s the hippy movement was very pro-pacifism and love, however, it ended almost abruptly. This was not the only cultural movement to advocate for peace, Mahatma Gandhi was the strongest advocate for non-violence in the last century, and he was assassinated. But can life really be lived completely peacefully? History has proven that violence is inevitable and that peace, while a beautiful concept, is nothing more than such. Since the beginning of time our race has shown that fighting is inescapable. There must be some reason as to why humans are violent creatures. Ayush Midha wrote an interesting article, “The Neuroscience of Aggression” which attempts to answer this question. Her authoritative work makes the claim that our species has a complex connection and desire for violence. Midha’s main argument is a claim one of cause and effect. All cause and effect claims have very opinionated and debated points of view. This makes her job hard to convince the reader of her standpoint. However, Ayush Midha’s effective use of Toulmin’s argument style makes her position strong and compelling.
I do not consider myself a realist or a pacifist. I more subscribe to just war theory. The reason why I subscribe myself to just war theory is because I believe that there are legitimate wars and illegitimate wars. In the book Crime Without Borders: An Introduction to International Criminal Justice by Aaron Fichtelberg states, “War is usually a bad thing, but under certain circumstances, it may be justified or even obligatory” (Fichtelberg, 2008, pg. 112).
The state of peace is significantly more than a lack of contention. Peace relies upon the admiration for human nobility and on the activity of the human ethics; particularly the goodness of equity, defined as every individual getting his legitimate due. This draws us to Augustine's astute definition of peace: tranquillitas ordinis, which translates to, "tranquility of order." The tranquility of order, according to Augustine, precedes peace. (City of God) Augustine's expression demonstrates that there is a "request" or an “order” as per which we can have peace in this life, and his definition infers that we can find and keep this request. However, one cannot fully entertain the idea of peace without
There are, however, various categories of ‘pacifist’. A ‘total pacifist’ is someone who completely avoids violence and believes it can never be justified, not even in self-defence or to protect others – this they see as the only morally correct view of war. A relative pacifist is someone who may use violence in certain situations but who supports disarmament. They are discriminating about WW1 but agree that WW2 had to be fought. Nuclear pacifists believe that conventional weapons are acceptable as a last resort if war is inevitable, as it is, but nuclear