Just War Theory: Phenomenon Between Political Communities

The Philosophy of War

War is an intentional conflict that is widespread and considered a phenomenon between political communities. There are three main perspectives of the ethics of war. Just War Theory is the most influential perspective of war. Realism is very influential amongst political scientist, as well as practitioners of international relations. Literal and straightforward, a pacifist rejects war and specific kinds and degree of violence. War is an actual armed conflict, thus individual feuds do not count as War unless it is between political communities such as states, International Wars like World War 1 and 2, are considered a war between states. Terrorists are considered as political communities
for their influence of developing statehood in their own countries. What is Statehood? Max Weber's distinction between state, which is a government and its machinery to organize life; and nation which is a group of people who they themselves believe are state because of their common traits such as ancestry, culture, and national experience. By distinguishing state and nation, we are distinguishing a government and its people.
By distinguishing these two, we can see how the problems of statehood is to the attributes of warfare.
Warfare is ultimately about governance and is a violent way to determine who the winner is and who the loser will be, the winner gets wealth and the power to decide what is what. War is the means for deciding what happens when peaceful resolutions cannot be made. Threats of war are not considered real nor indications of war. The conflict must be actual to count as war, both must be intentional and widespread, such as states to count as war. There is no real war unless there is intent and force. From the views of a philosopher of war, Carl Von Clausewitz suggested that war is simply "the continuation of policy by other means." This meaning war is a way to violently and forcefully resolve a policy when peaceful resolutions are ineffective. With Clausewitz's own view of war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will." Meaning war is vast and creates policies instead of just a continuation, which shows war is a development of humans. War is brutal, ugly and yet it is a part of human history and change. Although paradoxical, War reveals the darkness of humanity. War will always be a force in our lives and although we always hope in the future there would be no conflict, war has already scarred the earth. Because of War's violent and controversial effects on humanity are many question of its morals, is war wrong and can it be justified? Will it
always be a part of human life? Is war the reason for human’s inability to change their nature?
The two main perspectives of the ethics of war are Realism, meaning it contrasts the skepticism about applying moral justice to key problems of political communities. Realists claim power and national security are ways of motivation during war, because of this morals are just wishful thinking. This is utter nonsense as there are no such thing as ethics during war, a country should be considering interests that are essential such as influence over others and security, not morality. Realism is very influential amongst political scientist, as well as practitioners of international relations. Although complex realism is mostly about applying moral concepts to international events. For war, realists firmly believe that war is not only inevitable, but if a war has begun, a state should do whatever it can to win. They should forget just war theory, or international law and stick to interests such as power, and economic growth. There are two types of realism; the first is descriptive reality, meaning states either do not, or cannot act morally, thus there are no morals in war, and it is a product of mistake. Although there are arguments against this, such as states do have moral concerns, even if they fail to hold on to them. It is s also said that any state is motivated to win, and all the pretenses regard the necessity of the state and it’s pursue for power is exaggerated, (Walzer). The second type of realism is prescriptive realism, meaning states ought to behave amorally during war, mainly because if it is too moral it can be exploited as ruthless to other states. It is also important to know that prescriptive realism endorses the rules for war.
Pacifism, is the second perspective of war and it does not contrast with Realism due to its skeptical morals.
In Pacifism, moral concepts are applied to war. It makes sense to ask if war is meaningful or important, or should it not be undertaken. Literal and straightforward, a pacifist rejects war and specific kinds and degree of violence. War for a pacifist is always wrong. Pacifists, refuse to take brutal measures such as defending oneself and is country, because of this pacifists have all the benefits as a citizen while not sharing all its burdens. Also pacifists consider themselves internal threats to the state. Pacificism is full of optimistic idealism, pacifism lacks realism. The non-violent world is nonexistent thus while we are forced to resort to war can be morally justified. Another objection to pacifism is that by not resisting international aggression, it ends up not only regarding but failing to protect the people. A reply by pacifists was that we do not have to resort to war in order to protect the people though we can disprove the pacifists’ proposition, what if there was an aggressor who was remorseless, that is when we have to use political violence. Pacifism might be a disguised form of surrender, (Walzer). There are two kinds of modern pacifism, the first is consequentiality pacifism; which weighs the benefits from war and that it cannot outweigh the cost of fighting. The second is deontological pacifism, meaning the very act of war is
wrong.
One argument to both types of pacifism was invented by Aquinas, known as the doctrine of double effect. It is to explain why it is permissible to bring serious harm or death to another human. If it is permissible to leave harm as a side effect of bringing good although it is not permissible to cause harm even if it still brings good. This is used to overcome both CP and DP
War is mainly dominated by three major traditions, just war theory, pacifism, and realism. These three make up the discussions of war issues while just war theory is a large influential part of the discourse, realism and pacifism take as many challenges to philosophy.