Just War Identity

This is the reality of war. War is not clean cut or binary. It is dirty and and slaughter. It is cyclical and multifaceted. The carnage is a cost of war. Ethics should not be lost or sacrificed as war continues. This is in regards to the countless lives lost due to war. How many lives will be lost in order to achieve

In the article “War and Massacre,” Thomas Nagel seeks to portray a similar perception consistent with the values of absolutism. His overall view of the issue states that it is always wrong to target civilians, no matter how beneficial the aim might be, and that some weapons (like napalm) must never be used against enemy combatants, even if using those weapons is the only way to win a war. For him, actions take absolute priority over end results. Nagel sites examples, such as the scenarios pertaining to the Taxi Driver and the Politician, in order to give substantial reasoning to discuss “the most general moral problem raised by warfare: the problem of

The debate begins with the weight if it is okay to kill in war. In the opening article the author of the book lays out a a huge question of what it means when you kill in war. He begins by clarifying board understandings and views that many people hold

It is only when these prior moral questions have been answered that the second set of just-war criteria -- what scholars call the "ius in bello" or "war-conduct law" -- come into play, logically. The positive answers to the first set of questions, the "war-decision" questions, create the moral framework for addressing the two great "war-conduct" issues: "proportionality," which requires the use of no more force than necessary to vindicate the just cause; and "discrimination," or what we today call "non-combatant immunity."

When discussing and and debating the many different concerns on when and how war can be fought justifiably many will think of “just war theory”. “Just war theory” is divided into two different parts. The two parts are the cause of war and the conduct of war (Rourke and Boyer, 2010, pg. 218). Jus and bellum is what the Western tradition has believed existed in many different cases. A few of those cases that were discussed are where the war is, a last resort, declared by legitimate authority, waged in self defense or to establish/restore justice, and fought to bring about peace (Rourke and Boyer, 2010, pg. 218). Therefore, jus in bello is just the conduct of war. Jus in bello includes most of the standards of proportionality and discrimination

It is wrong to lie, and wrong to steal, and wrong to kill, but in war men must lie and steal and kill. War must be wrong. Certainly, but it does not apply to everybody. War is wrong for the party that is in the wrong, and whose act involves both parties in all these wrong acts. War is an accursed thing, and it is hell. But all is fair in war and hell. War is wrong, for the party that is in the wrong. War is right, for the party that is in the right. The accursed, hellish thing is right, for those whose cause is right. Lying, stealing, killing are wrong. However, lying, stealing, killing are only right for those whose cause is right. For these, these detestable immoralities are sacred, heavenly things. Wrong is right, whenever it is used for right ends. The answer of war is a pitiable answer. It is useless to attempt to describe the shamefulness of such doctrine. It crushes to dust the last stone of the foundations of morals. War turns morality into a thing of mere temporary, shifting, baseless expediency. The most serious objection to war is the change in moral standards which it

All across the world, countries are drowning in the acts of warfare. Citizens residing in unescapable conditions due to war are suffering and likely calling out to other nations for help. It is proven that fighting violence with more violence does not draw a solution. The question of war being morally justifiable is one most easily answered by ancient and modern philosophers: it is not. For war induces a great deal of all those involved, promotes unnecessary violence, and overall it prevents the expansion of the human race.

Indirectly Targeting Civilians “Of the fifty aerial strikes against Iraqi leaders, not one resulted in the death of the intended target. Yet in four strikes researched by Human Rights Watch, forty-two civilians were killed and dozens more were injured”(Conduct of the Air War, 2003). The concept of collateral damage estimates and the metric of collateral damage to mission impact is an important component in deciding whether an attack is ethical, necessary, and legitimate. Indiscriminate targeting of civilians is accepted by the international community as fundamentally wrong and illegal. However, the international community does allow for a degree of targeting civilians in exchange for engaging legitimate targets. Despite it’s acceptance

79,284,507, That is the number of lives lost by war since 1900. That is more deaths than the entire population of midwest America by nearly 12 million. I can’t help but ask myself, are two centuries of war really worth the cost of 80 million lives? Even more, is the pursuit behind any war worth the cost of a single life? For some people the answer to this question is a resounding yes; For others The answer is a blatant no; and for a few people they are unsure or even confused. Personally, I believe that war is never justifiable. That no worldly pursuit is worth the cost of taking another 's life. For the purpose of this paper I will be discussing arguments for both sides of this issue. I intend on using scripture to confirm What I believe to be truth. Before I get to my main points I would first like to share a story.

Combatants of the war from the different sides are the only ones that should be involved in the conflict; civilians should not be in the mess and be harm or even die because of it. From statistics of war, the data estimated that for every combatant’s death equal to ten civilian casualties. The civilian casualties often come from people just being in the same area as those people who are actually combatants, only small amounts of civilian casualties come from accidental killing. People, who harmed and killed civilians, understand fully of the consequences of their actions, and knew fully what they are doing to the civilians, yet they still choose to commit those acts of terror upon the innocents. As Thomas Nagel said in War and Massacre, though people understand

In past wars the majority of casualties were the combatants, but today’s wars have larger civilian casualty numbers. With aggressive pursuit of stories by the media and fast exchange of information in todays age, armed action against a states own citizens do not remain secret for long.

War has been a part of human history as far back as people can remember. At this point people would argue it’s in our very nature to seek conflict as a means to a resolution. It’s hard to dispute when looking at our history books, but that’s the thing, it’s

This debate sparks an important question for the reader to comprehend: when is war justified? When is it okay to put the lives of hundreds or thousands of men in jeopardy?

In this article, McPherson (2007) tries to argue on whether terrorism is distinctively wrong as many people have been made to believe. He compares the negative effects of terrorism with those of the conventional war. According to McPherson, terrorism is not worse than conventional war because both may start from unjust or just causes, and both techniques involve the use of force against unarmed civilians or non-combatants. Conventional war may cause more casualties than terrorism, and the latter can have justification on the ground of a lack of a better option and the ground of just cause. He supports his argument by stating that in the last one century, the conventional war caused the deaths of more than 100 million people, where 43 million soldiers and 62 million civilians perished in the war. Such deaths have occurred in the era of advanced military technology where the level of accuracy is excellent than the weapons that soldiers used before the twentieth century. Such a number is extreme compared to the few thousand people who have died as a result of terrorist attacks.

the human element out of the equations of warfare. The ethical debate rides on the question of