When is war justified

“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 encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

Niccolo Machiavelli termed the phrase “Does the End Justify the Means” in a 16th century political writings titled The Prince. According to The American Heritage Idioms Dictionary, the term is defined as, “A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it” (Ammer, 2017). The reasons for war vary from protecting and preserving our freedom, to economic reasons. Should the adage be followed unconditionally in terms of all wars? In the case of the U.S. military, the answer is yes. If our military didn’t feel this way, the U.S. would not be the powerhouse it is today in protecting our freedoms, assisting in economic stability and keeping our nation safe.

Life can bring unexpected events that individuals might not be prepared to confront. This was the case of O’Brien in the story, “On the Rainy River” from the book The Things They Carried. As an author and character O’Brien describes his experiences about the Vietnam War. In the story, he faces the conflict of whether he should or should not go to war after being drafted. He could not imagine how tough fighting must be, without knowing how to fight, and the reason for such a war. In addition, O’Brien is terrified of the idea of leaving his family, friends and everything he loves behind. He decides to run away from his responsibility with the society. However, a feeling of shame and embarrassment makes him go to war. O’Brien considers

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

In the memoir The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien, the chapter titled: On the Rainy River has a central idea of resentment, embarrassment and eventual acceptance to change. The author creates this central idea with the use of a regretful tone, man vs society conflict, and dreary imagery. The theme of this chapter contributes to O’Brien’s intentions for the book because it demonstrates the struggle, shame, and or confusion each man drafted into the war experienced.

The short story “On The Rainy River” is written through the perspective of O’Brien in present day and as a young faced with a draft notice for Vietnam War. In “On The Rainy River,” O’brien portrays the importance of bravery in an individual through the use of symbolism, powerful tone, and reflective point of view.

The Things They Carried offered a unique and personal look into the life of one soldier’s experience. It showed how the war held obligations to its soldiers and expectations for each of the men to follow. The Things They Carried also showed a side of war that was not always seen in other documents and accounts such as Tim O’Brien thoughts and feelings during the war. However, many of the things O’Brien stated throughout his book is very similar to the experiences shared by men in the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Moreover, despite some similarities, each war is unique and have their own distinctive causes and effects that have solidified their importance in American history. When it comes to war, it seems that most experiences

In Tim O’Brien’s fictional narrative “On the Rainy River,” the narrator faces the dilemma of avoiding the draft or submitting and going to Vietnam, a common predicament that many men faced after receiving draft cards for the Vietnam War. O’Brien displays the thought process of the narrator as he makes a decision, and near the beginning, the narrator describes certain qualities that he believes make him “too good for [that] war”(2). He lists off achievements like “president of the student body” and “full-ride scholarship,” arguing for the idea that he is “above” going to war(O’Brien 2). Through explaining what the narrator believes to be superior traits, the reader might begin to ask, “What types of people actually went to the war?” If the narrator feels that he was above going to Vietnam, there must be some preconceived notion of who was expected to serve. After seeing how the narrator reacted to his call to battle, a question is left of whether the draft was fair in relation to social classes.

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.

The American’s were not justified in waging war against the British.The British were actually paying a lot more in taxes than the american colonists. Whately and other British officials thought that since they fought for our advantages that we should in turn agree to pay higher taxes to compensate for the war that was fought for our benefit.

Just cause is the justification of waging war. The simplest way to achieve this is for the nations to defend itself from being physically and aggressively attacked by another nation. The United States and its allies were able to accomplish this. By 1939 Europe was in turmoil and Great Britain and France were watching on in horror as Hitler’s Nazi Germany had steam rolled through Czechoslovakia and Poland; and later in 1940 sweeping through France. The United States faced physical aggression by Japan, and only then was there a call to war. Prior to the events in early December, the U.S. wanted to remain distanced from the war in terms of man power; but not material. The Allies of a matter of self-defense and coming to the defense of others, as well

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.

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.

From the various points and examples given, it is clear the war is unjustified in many ways as it involves mass killings and is unethical, it destroys economies, having an impact on people and the country physically, and it causes great harm to a society, especially children. However, it can also be justified, only under very strict circumstances where it can prove to be