War Pacifism

Some people think war is justified because; it is in order to counter terrorism. I think they're wrong because rather than war being the only solution my opinion is that war is the worse way to handle a conflict. I agree, that sometimes we are forced to do things we might not want to do, for example after the terrorist attack of September 11, it became

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

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).

justified for a man to wage war if the war is for the common good or for the good of those who he is fighting for. But if the one whom he is fighting

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

The damage of wars is way too much that it should never happen under any circumstance. No one should ever initiate a war and claim it justified. Let’s see why war should not be justified.

A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their

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.

Can a nation justify using military force? A very respected English leader Winston Churchill once told the people of England that, “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be we shall fight on the beaches we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” In contraction, John F. Kennedy uttered, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” Over the course of history, millions of people were murdered for the sake of land, resources, and money. In comparison, war been fought to save lives and for self-defense. In some cases, war can be justified.

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

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.

As explained by William Hawk in his essay “Pacifism: Reclaiming the Moral Presumption”, the pacifist is a person that refuses to participate in war for in any circumstance for two reasons; the grounding belief that war is wrong, and the belief that human life is sacred and invaluable. Many pacifist

Many of the core beliefs of conscientious objection derive from the teachings or beliefs of pacifism. Pacifism has been a system of thinking and living for hundreds of years, and, in the 20th century many objection and pacifistic movements have sprung up all around the nation, more so than in any other time. Pacifism and conscientious objection in the United States have been moral issues that have fallen under question due to the belief of the participants that killing, war, and the act of violence is wrong and immoral.

Thesis Statement: Wars can never be justified by one person, or group, thinking they are better than someone else, but unfortunately the human characteristic of self-righteousness never changes.

World Peace is something that will never happen. Too many countries have too much military power and don't want to give in to any other country. War is something that the world is going to have to deal with because there has been very few years over the history of the world that have been war free. Like one quote by an unknown author says, "Peace is rare: less than 8% of the time since the beginning of recorded time has the world been entirely at peace. In a total of 3530 years, 286 have been warless. Eight thousand treaties have been broken in this time."