Just And Unjust War Rules Analysis

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.

Lastly, the notion to hurt one’s enemy peoples to force their government into a complete surrender and to minimize the general loss of one’s own troops is immoral. Naturally, the typical ethical standards of war would not justify any use of dehumanization in order for a nation to supersede the other. The Japanese became dehumanized in the minds of American combatants and civilians. The process enabled greater cultural and physical differences between white Americans and Japanese than between the former and their European foes. In Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977), he defines “ the use of force by one nation against another is always wrong unless the latter has already forfeited its basic rights.” Walzer is clearly stating that wars; especially nuclear wars are unjust if they strip away basic civilian rights. In other words, they are ponds in a game of political and nuclear warfare.

Jus a bellum, the right to go to war, explicitly describes how a nation-state should conduct itself before preparing for war. There are seven sub-categories within Jus a bellum: Just Cause, Comparative Justice, Competent Authority, Right Intention, Profitability of Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality. Just Cause is explained as needing to have a

In all of Human history, only 8% of that time has been completely at peace. From 150 million to 1 billion people in total have been killed by war. That’s 150 million families at least who have had their loved ones ripped from their grasp. This is far too many. War is unnecessary and barbaric. In “just and unjust war” by Howard Zinn the complexities of whether or not a war can be called just or unjust are debated. Peace can be achieved. the three crucial steps toward making world peace are education, open communication, and human rights laws must be strictly enforced.

It is usually quite clear to distinguish what is right and wrong in everyday life; it is wrong to kill people, it is wrong to purposely hurt others and it is wrong to leave others behind. In life, most if not all know what they should and shouldn't do. However in war meanings of morality change. In the novel All Quiet on the West Front by Erich Maria Remarque, the meaning of morality changes as the immoral becomes moral because the boys now fight for their lives.

There are seven criteria that must be met for a war to be considered a just war. The first criteria is that the war must have a just cause in which there is a defensive action against aggression that is unjustified. From the U.S. point of view they had a just cause to enter world war 2 because they were attacked by the Japanese for reasons that they believed to be unjustified and therefore had the right to defend themselves. The U.S. also fulfilled the second criteria of a just war, in that war was declared by a competent authority. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, congress voted on going to war and therefore the U.S. government declared war. The third criteria for a just war is that it must be fought with the right intention. While the U.S.

There are other people that argue that, they are fighting for what is right. Which is a great argument to have, but it is one thing to argue that on a personal scale but when whole nations get involved that notion becomes a little more hazy. In Alexander Moseley’s article Just War Theory he quotes Michael Walzer, a American political theorist and author of books such as “Just and Unjust Wars” and “Spheres of Justice”. Walzer’s view of killing and the justification for killing anyone is this: “...Modern warfare dissolves the possibility of discrimination: civilians are just as necessary causal conditions for the war machine as are combatants, therefore, they claim, there is no moral distinction in targeting an armed combatant and a civilian

When discussing Jus In Bello, it is important be keep in mind the four principles of war; humanity, proportionality, military necessity, and distinction.

This particular section has to do with what is considered moral when fighting a war, such as being able to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants as well as how much force should be utilized and is morally acceptable when fighting an enemy (Moser and McDonald, 2016). Pertaining to discrimination, the United States should be tolerant and aware of those who were not involved, or noncombatants. Although unintended deaths cannot be avoided, many times because they are unintended, the war remains just. Crawford iterates, “such deaths may be permissible (albeit regrettable) if the military goal of the action was just; noncombatant injuries were unintended; and military effects outweighed the unintended effects on noncombatants” (Crawford, 2003). It is difficult to morally justify any deaths of innocents, but in war a realistic viewpoint is necessary. The outcome of the war is crucial to the lives of many, and although some may die, their lives were not in vain because they ultimately contributed to the greater good. Furthermore, as long as unnecessary violence is not put into practice, the war remains just. For example, if the United States were to bomb civilian populated areas, both discrimination and proportionality would be broken, making the war unjust. Fighting and using force where necessary and doing anything possible to save innocent lives gives the United States moral grounds

Part of the ten commandments states that one shall not kill. In many instances policy officers are put in situations in which they have to shot someone. Police officers will fire at someone either because their life or the life of others is in danger. According to the law the killing of another person by a police officer is justifiable in some cases. However, if the ten commandments state that one shall not kill does God justify the killing as well. according to the Just War Theory a doctrine that ensures that war is morally justifiable The Just War theory can be applied to the justification of the killing of another person by a police. If a police officer shots someone in order to prevent an atrocity, it is justifiable. I believe that that

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

Aquinas, who is an important medieval philosophy thinker, has placed some limitations on fighting a war. This essay will argue three limitations, which are: waging war, the killing of innocents and self-defense, and whether they should or should not be applied to modern warfare.

War comes with unfairness because people are forced by the military to join the war.

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.

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'.