Is Preemptive Warfare Morally Justified?

Nowadays, facing a globalized world, terrorism is a proposition which is very worth to discuss. Whenever it comes to terrorism, whether it is the state or people, there are different opinions about it, especially in morality. The debate about the morality of terrorism has become a hot topic today, and a common question is caused whether terrorism is justified or whether it is always wrong. One the one hand, some thinkers believe that sometimes terrorism is moral and justified such as utilitarian thinkers, political realists. The political realist supports terrorism is justified if people take effective violence to protect the interests of the state. At the same time, utilitarian thinkers also believe that sometimes this behaviour that citizens take terrorist attacks against foreign governments is moral because they want to get fair treatment in this way. On the other hand, other thinkers claim that terrorism is always wrong, and they oppose any form of violence. The absolute pacifist is one of the representatives. The absolute pacifist holds people should adopt a more peaceful approach to dealing with problems rather than using violence. These two debates inspire more philosophers to study war and terrorism. For example, through the analysis of the morality of war, a philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas concluded that “although war is not a good thing, it is morally justified under certain conditions” (Velasquez, 2017, p. 640). And Aquinas also came up with a just war theory to

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

George W. Bush agrees with preemptive war, he believes that this is the best approach in seeking balance of power that favors human freedom. In the article "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" Written by himself in 2005, he declares that his mission is to defend peace by fighting terrorist, preserve peace by building good relations among the great powers. Also, continuing the topic of peace by extending later by encouraging free and open societies. How is he going to do this? Bush has himself and the United States of America taken the responsibility to lead building a world that trades in freedom and therefore growing in prosperity. In unison with their allies and their new found cooperation with Russia that is partnering

Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

Over the course of this school year, the resurfacing topic of controversy is morality. Through the memoirs of Elie Wiesel, the darkness of humanity reveals itself. The sad truth this tells is that humans are callous or immoral to fellow man on an individual, national, and even global scale, leading to events that go down in history as atrocities. The international debate this raises, is whether nations, like America, should institute a policy of 'humanitarian military intervention' which is when an independent government fails to deliver human rights to the governed, other countries without permission can intervene with military force. Morality is the focus of the international debate regarding this foreign policy, because that underlying motivation

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.

Utilitarianism is a theory that the best moral action is one that maximizes utility. In other words, doing what is best for the greatest number of people whether or not some are hurt as long as the good outweighs the bad. If Ms. Arnett’s decisions prevented 1,000 people who were exposed to bird flu from dying and only 6 people had committed suicide, then Ms. Arnett’s actions would likely be considered ethical in this method.

Utilitarianism as an ethical theory is seen as 'an act that is morally correct if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the act'. (Crane, Matten, Chapt. 3). It is a principle that concentrates on the outcome of an act and compares the good outcome with the bad outcome and supports the outcome that brings the greatest amount of good for all stakeholders involved.

Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not

As current problems of terrorism and the war on Iraq, chemical, biological and nuclear warfare (CBW) issues are important and relevant. CBW agents are dangerous, uncontrollable and undifferentiating weapons of mass destructions. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are capable of mass destruction aimed at killing masses of people. Using CBW agents comes with many ethical dilemmas and consequential side-effects. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are designed to yield a great number of deaths. Regarding the ethical use of CBW, while looking at the larger context of war, one must determine the value of life. As backed by Virtues Ethics, this mass

Utilitarianism, at first, appears to be a rather uncontroversial ethical theory in that it bases its plausibility on its basic principle of maximizing human happiness. Even so, it proves to be rather problematic in many of its aspects as soon as one discerns how this ethical account ascribes moral value to actions. Particularly, one worrying issue for utilitarianism, which I will be delving into, deals with is its demands on the way in which agents are required to act and lead their lives in order for them to be considered moral and for their lives to be considered good. The challenges surrounding the stringent requirements of utilitarianism and its tendency to overburden moral agents with these requirements is pointed out by Bernard Williams in his 1973 essay “A Critique of Utilitarianism.” Williams’ worry boils down to this: if utilitarianism judges the morality of actions solely on the basis of whether they maximize happiness (or not), then it seems that agents who are not at every moment engaged in acts that are increasing the overall goodness in the world are either both directly and indirectly responsible for others’ suffering that is caused or results of their actions or inaction. This commitment utilitarianism ties us to is what Williams refers to as

According to Michael Wazler, the theory of aggression implies to the ideologies of jus ad bellum as detailed in the international law. He uses domestic correlation as the basis of the theory by explaining how the rules that govern citizens apply to the international community. The rights that apply to the citizens are similar to those of the states. He argues that “Every violation of the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of an independent state is called aggression” He subdivides the theory into six main points that act as the standards of comprehending war from a moral point of view.

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

This essay examines whether or not airpower, along with its technological advances, improved or diminished the United States (US) ability to wage war according to the tenets of jus in bello. The goal of war should not be total annihilation of the enemy without regard to life and property. Although there are many perspectives on this topic, most philosophers believe technologically advanced air power has gone outside the realm of jus in bello. However, based on careful analysis, research shows leaders are required to follow the laws of war and exercise sound judgment. This argument is supported by examining just war theory and the key tenet jus in bello as it applies to technological advances in airpower.

I believe that utilitarianism is the correct view to take when faced upon extreme situations. A real world example of extreme situations is war. During World War II the decision for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was taken from a Utilitarianism stand point. What led the United States to make such a decision was the Japanese attack, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Japanese showed no mercy, they attack killed lots of innocent man, women, and children. The United States was well aware that if they did not silence their