Just intonation

explain the traditional just war theory and McMahan’s alternate responsibility-based approach. Further, I will present a number of objections to the responsibility criterion and consider my personal responses to these, as well as those McMahan discusses in his paper. Overall, I will conclude that the responsibility criterion provides a valuable account of the deep morality of war and develops a persuasive argument for rejecting the moral equality of combatants. II. TRADITIONAL JUST WAR THEORY

debate whenever or not it is sinful to have war. Under Thomas Aquinas’ Just War Theory it makes the approach possible as it believes that it makes sense to discuss and debate the morality of war. Under the legitimate authorization aspect to the theory it believes that the decision of whenever to enter/start war must be made by proper legal authority and proper legal process, however there are many flaws among that theory. While the Just War Theory does put into consideration the five reasons of how to

pose a serious threat your safety. Killing them would be a serious violation of the rights that utilitarian’s hold so dear to them. The net utility of killing them is mostly negative. If you refuse you preserve their lives but also disobey and order. Just like in refusing to fight in an unjust way you could argue that refusing undermines the authority of the military and the state. But in this case refusing only challenges the authority of the person giving the order. In some militaries you may be praised

Assassinations and targeted killings have been topics vastly debated around the world throughout history. As a matter of fact, this matter can be discussed through the eyes of Michael Walzer from a just war theory perspective. This viewpoint can be used in order to explain just assassinations of political and military leaders as well as other individuals. For example, a person can be the victim of targeted killings if their death would result in less future violence or warfare. However, the individual

the police demonize drug dealers and shared their experiences dealing with drugged out people. While these scare tactics give an appearance of deterrence there was a study cited in the article by Scientific American, conducted that teenagers were just as likely to use drugs after through these abstinence based programs than if they didn’t get any information at all. The article also found a fatal flaw in the DARE campaigns pedagogy, it was the lack of student in student role play on how to handle

Anderson writes The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel to provide students, of any level, with an overview and evaluation of the varying approaches to understanding the Fourth Gospel, and ultimately to serve as a guide through the controversy and riddles encountered in the Fourth Gospel. Anderson addresses the work of the international community of Johannine scholars and introduces a new set of paradigms. The introduction immediately captivates those who have yet to wade in the perplexities of the Fourth

even if the use of war is to reject tyranny, solve conflict, and advance peace. However, Christian’s attitudes toward violence and war began to change when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. With this change in attitude, the Christian just war theory developed after Rome was invaded by the Visigoths in 410 A.D. The first instance when the use of violence was justifiable was examined in the New Testament. The New Testament contradicted the chapter of Luke about the Sermon on the plain

Luke takes us through the longer version of his birth and his childhood and focuses on the humanity of Jesus. There was a debate in this story whether or not Jesus was human and raised many question to potential followers. Many said that Jesus was just a spirit but by reading Luke, there was great detail of his humanity. Luke directed this book directly to Gentiles and focused more on the teachings and miracles that Jesus created rather than the law. Stated in the text, Luke’s Gospel also depicts

question is, in the relevant sense, the killing of an innocent person" (186). If the war is valid and the cause of battle appropriate, then the soldiers whose lives are taken are just as innocent as the civilians who have nothing to do with the war. Innocent victims in a war include both civilians and soldiers fighting for the just side. Pacifists believe that the innumerable deaths of innocent men, women, and children that take place during war far outweigh any benefit that war could bring. After all

questionable. For the military intervention to occur, a declaration from the government must be made. If a war is to be just then the third condition that must be satisfied is that it must be done with the right intentions. If a nation’s real reason for war is only to further its own interests, or to get back at an enemy, then that war is not considered just. With the just war theory, the only true was to have right intentions is for peace to be the desired outcome. The purpose of humanitarian