Pros And Cons Of A Just War
Just War
Thousands of years ago, before motor vehicles, before long distance travel, before Christianity itself, scholars and philosophers were debating a question which is still on the forefront of many minds today: Is war ever just? By the 4th century, St. Augustine, also known as Augustine of Hippo, had developed a set of criteria regarding when it was justified to go to war (Patterson). These criteria are still widely used today, although debated by many, especially with the recent use of drones and unmanned vehicles in war. Religious figures also debate this topic, as some regard human life as sacred, with no just opportunity for taking another life, while others regard it as necessary, and still other religions reach an interesting compromise …show more content…
between the two. Traditional standards and works have long been treated as reliable guides for the decision of whether or not a war will be justified. Some argue that recent advances such as military drone technology do not fall within these parameters, or cause traditional guidelines to no longer be applicable (Kerr, Tooley). However, these circumstances only exemplify the need to adhere to these guidelines, which are still ethically pertinent in modern day. If these criteria are met, then a war can be justified.
A variety of reasonable claims regarding the injustice of war are frequently presented. Such claims are made by religious figures, and more recently, people debating the use of drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in war (Sekar et al.). Religious figures often present a series of arguments, such as that no circumstances make killing our own species just, as preservation of life is of utmost importance (Sekar et al.). More modern debates call into question whether drone technology follows standard criteria for just war (Kerr, Tooley). Others have argued that with this recent technology, all war could be avoided, and have become nothing more than self interest, or even result in more deaths than otherwise (Kerr). All of these theories come from valid reasoning, and although all reflect circumstances in which they have been true, none of them invalidate the truth that wars can be morally justified, because the circumstances in which these come into question do not follow standards for just war.
Many wars in history have not been justified, however, this does not mean that all wars are unjust.
The traditional Just War Theory, long cited as the criteria for a just war, are still solid, and if these criteria are met, then the war is justified. These criteria, established in the 4th century, traditionally include the following: the war must be a last resort, all violence must be backed by legitimate authority, there must be just cause, there must be a probability for success, with right intention, there must be a proportionality of means, and civilians must never be a target of war (Augustine, as discussed by Patterson). If these are followed, as argued by centuries of leaders, then the war is justified. Another common justification for war is known as “Responsibility to protect” (R2P). With R2P, as defined by Juan Francisco Lobo, outsiders have a responsibility to protect civilians, prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing, even if by force. This responsibility holds people to an ethical standard to protect other human beings. In this circumstance, the necessary use of violence is not to destroy human lives, but to protect them. These guidelines are only reinforced by the fact that they have developed independently over several time periods and geographic barriers, in multiple religions. For example, Mulsum standards condone war, as long as they do not “transgress limits” (Holy Qur’an, 22:39-40). In the Islamic faith, limits similar to the traditional Just War Theory present themselves. Some examples include always trying to achieve peace, no pre-emptive strikes, not killing prisoners or stripping them of dignity (Rashid, as qtd in Sekar et al.). Hinduism calls for respect of the elderly, young, and women in combat, and believes that only like forces should fight, for example, cavalry should fight only cavalry (Sekar). More than this, religions have even justified
wars. Many prominent religious leaders have justified war under appropriate circumstances. Although most do not typically associate modern religion with justifying war, several leaders have explained their beliefs. Even the Catholic Church, while believing the human life should be preserved at all costs, and weapons of mass destructions should not be used, says, “Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2321, ad qtd in Sekar et al.). As one author put it, “As I understand it, Christ’s injunction to turn the other cheek us an admonition against taking personal revenge, not an endorsement of absolute pacifism” (McLean). The New Testament, such as in Roman 13 and 1 Peter 2, also can be interpreted to justify war. Often the argument of “loving one’s neighbor” is brought up, to which some have countered that war is in self-defense of your community, and could prevent further loss of life (Geoffery, as qtd in Sekar et al.). An ancient Hindu model from 700 B.C.E. called Ahisma encourages nonviolence, but recognises that war is a necessity as defense (Sekar). Other religions, such as Baha’i have reached a compromise of sorts, settling on driving ambulances, administering war, and so forth, but not actively engaging in combat (McLean, as qtd in Sekar et al.). According to Abdul Rashid, Islam recognizes was as a “fact of life,” and some see holy wars as the 6th pillar of Islam, although this is debated. Throughout history, many wars have been unjust, but many have been just as well.
The American Revolution is greatly emphasised in the standard American school curricula. Children are taught that this is the beginning of their country as they know it, but the war also serves as an example of war in terms of whether it was just. Eric Patterson has analyzed the war, and come to the conclusion that it was, in fact, just. The first criterion of the Just War Theory is “last resort.” Patterson suggests that the American Revolution was the only alternative to tyranny, and therefor a last resort. One documents, known as “The Declaration on the Causes and Necessities of taking up Arms,” or simply “The Declaration,” written during this revolution states, “We fight not for glory or for conquest.” This view, although not shared by everyone, shows one example of of the idea. However, it was contradicted, especially by those who believe that the war resulted in unnecessary death, and that those who took charge (i.e. Washington, Franklin) had no authority or justification to do so (Noll). Other strong examples might include the American Civil War, or the Haitian Revolution, both show instances of slaves being forced into war to regain their fundamental human rights. Another strong example of a just war is World War II. According to the BBC, the authority was legitimate, as it was fought by Germany and the allied countries. To fulfill the other criteria, the cause was just, because Germany had invaded other countries, and the allies had a responsibility to protect, the intention was just, as it was to correct the evil done by Hitler, the allies had a reasonable chance of success, as they had largely superior militaries, all negotiations had failed, and almost all fighting was limited to harbors and munitions areas (BBC.) However, as is always the case, some arguments can be made that WWII was not just because of occurrences such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which involved civilians. It is almost impossible to study one single war and conclusively say that it was just, because some actions will always fall into the gray areas which differ depending on interpretations of Just War Theory, leading some believe that this theory is no longer reliable.
The recent invention of targeting drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and their use in the military has caused massive uproar, especially regarding their ethicality, in several communities (Tooley). Some argue that they are impractical, harm innocents, and are impersonal, causing those controlling them to be cavalier (Tooley, Kerr). However, some, such as Ian Kerr, have argued that robots can be programmed with international standards such as Just War, which allows to make even better decisions than a human might. He also believes that robots are not vulnerable to bias, exhaustion, retribution, or other such emotions. And yet, drones may violate Just War in that they have discrimination, imminence, proportionality, and probability (Tooley). Some also believe that they may generate more war because it is easier to make decisions. Kerr wonders if we even have the capacity to make such robots. Although it is unclear where this UAV direction will lead society, it is quickly returning questions of ethicality in warfare and just war into the minds of everyday people. Some countries are outlawing UAVs, others are encouraging their use (Kerr). Protests are being held daily, showing that, as always, Just War is one of society’s deepest questions.
For thousands of years, standards of ethicality in and going to war have been in question. Certain criteria have been independently established globally, suggesting that under these circumstances, yes, war can be justified. Although met with religious and ethical disagreement, many have showed that war can be justified. Although these circumstances are rare and far between, wars can be just, although they are not always, and, some feel, these circumstances are even more rare today. With the advent of recent technologies, these ethicality lines are beginning to blur further, but as long as these ancient moral codes are withheld, they will guide society to show if a war is justified, and indeed, it could be.
Thousands of years ago, before motor vehicles, before long distance travel, before Christianity itself, scholars and philosophers were debating a question which is still on the forefront of many minds today: Is war ever just? By the 4th century, St. Augustine, also known as Augustine of Hippo, had developed a set of criteria regarding when it was justified to go to war (Patterson). These criteria are still widely used today, although debated by many, especially with the recent use of drones and unmanned vehicles in war. Religious figures also debate this topic, as some regard human life as sacred, with no just opportunity for taking another life, while others regard it as necessary, and still other religions reach an interesting compromise …show more content…
between the two. Traditional standards and works have long been treated as reliable guides for the decision of whether or not a war will be justified. Some argue that recent advances such as military drone technology do not fall within these parameters, or cause traditional guidelines to no longer be applicable (Kerr, Tooley). However, these circumstances only exemplify the need to adhere to these guidelines, which are still ethically pertinent in modern day. If these criteria are met, then a war can be justified.
A variety of reasonable claims regarding the injustice of war are frequently presented. Such claims are made by religious figures, and more recently, people debating the use of drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in war (Sekar et al.). Religious figures often present a series of arguments, such as that no circumstances make killing our own species just, as preservation of life is of utmost importance (Sekar et al.). More modern debates call into question whether drone technology follows standard criteria for just war (Kerr, Tooley). Others have argued that with this recent technology, all war could be avoided, and have become nothing more than self interest, or even result in more deaths than otherwise (Kerr). All of these theories come from valid reasoning, and although all reflect circumstances in which they have been true, none of them invalidate the truth that wars can be morally justified, because the circumstances in which these come into question do not follow standards for just war.
Many wars in history have not been justified, however, this does not mean that all wars are unjust.
The traditional Just War Theory, long cited as the criteria for a just war, are still solid, and if these criteria are met, then the war is justified. These criteria, established in the 4th century, traditionally include the following: the war must be a last resort, all violence must be backed by legitimate authority, there must be just cause, there must be a probability for success, with right intention, there must be a proportionality of means, and civilians must never be a target of war (Augustine, as discussed by Patterson). If these are followed, as argued by centuries of leaders, then the war is justified. Another common justification for war is known as “Responsibility to protect” (R2P). With R2P, as defined by Juan Francisco Lobo, outsiders have a responsibility to protect civilians, prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing, even if by force. This responsibility holds people to an ethical standard to protect other human beings. In this circumstance, the necessary use of violence is not to destroy human lives, but to protect them. These guidelines are only reinforced by the fact that they have developed independently over several time periods and geographic barriers, in multiple religions. For example, Mulsum standards condone war, as long as they do not “transgress limits” (Holy Qur’an, 22:39-40). In the Islamic faith, limits similar to the traditional Just War Theory present themselves. Some examples include always trying to achieve peace, no pre-emptive strikes, not killing prisoners or stripping them of dignity (Rashid, as qtd in Sekar et al.). Hinduism calls for respect of the elderly, young, and women in combat, and believes that only like forces should fight, for example, cavalry should fight only cavalry (Sekar). More than this, religions have even justified
wars. Many prominent religious leaders have justified war under appropriate circumstances. Although most do not typically associate modern religion with justifying war, several leaders have explained their beliefs. Even the Catholic Church, while believing the human life should be preserved at all costs, and weapons of mass destructions should not be used, says, “Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2321, ad qtd in Sekar et al.). As one author put it, “As I understand it, Christ’s injunction to turn the other cheek us an admonition against taking personal revenge, not an endorsement of absolute pacifism” (McLean). The New Testament, such as in Roman 13 and 1 Peter 2, also can be interpreted to justify war. Often the argument of “loving one’s neighbor” is brought up, to which some have countered that war is in self-defense of your community, and could prevent further loss of life (Geoffery, as qtd in Sekar et al.). An ancient Hindu model from 700 B.C.E. called Ahisma encourages nonviolence, but recognises that war is a necessity as defense (Sekar). Other religions, such as Baha’i have reached a compromise of sorts, settling on driving ambulances, administering war, and so forth, but not actively engaging in combat (McLean, as qtd in Sekar et al.). According to Abdul Rashid, Islam recognizes was as a “fact of life,” and some see holy wars as the 6th pillar of Islam, although this is debated. Throughout history, many wars have been unjust, but many have been just as well.
The American Revolution is greatly emphasised in the standard American school curricula. Children are taught that this is the beginning of their country as they know it, but the war also serves as an example of war in terms of whether it was just. Eric Patterson has analyzed the war, and come to the conclusion that it was, in fact, just. The first criterion of the Just War Theory is “last resort.” Patterson suggests that the American Revolution was the only alternative to tyranny, and therefor a last resort. One documents, known as “The Declaration on the Causes and Necessities of taking up Arms,” or simply “The Declaration,” written during this revolution states, “We fight not for glory or for conquest.” This view, although not shared by everyone, shows one example of of the idea. However, it was contradicted, especially by those who believe that the war resulted in unnecessary death, and that those who took charge (i.e. Washington, Franklin) had no authority or justification to do so (Noll). Other strong examples might include the American Civil War, or the Haitian Revolution, both show instances of slaves being forced into war to regain their fundamental human rights. Another strong example of a just war is World War II. According to the BBC, the authority was legitimate, as it was fought by Germany and the allied countries. To fulfill the other criteria, the cause was just, because Germany had invaded other countries, and the allies had a responsibility to protect, the intention was just, as it was to correct the evil done by Hitler, the allies had a reasonable chance of success, as they had largely superior militaries, all negotiations had failed, and almost all fighting was limited to harbors and munitions areas (BBC.) However, as is always the case, some arguments can be made that WWII was not just because of occurrences such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which involved civilians. It is almost impossible to study one single war and conclusively say that it was just, because some actions will always fall into the gray areas which differ depending on interpretations of Just War Theory, leading some believe that this theory is no longer reliable.
The recent invention of targeting drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and their use in the military has caused massive uproar, especially regarding their ethicality, in several communities (Tooley). Some argue that they are impractical, harm innocents, and are impersonal, causing those controlling them to be cavalier (Tooley, Kerr). However, some, such as Ian Kerr, have argued that robots can be programmed with international standards such as Just War, which allows to make even better decisions than a human might. He also believes that robots are not vulnerable to bias, exhaustion, retribution, or other such emotions. And yet, drones may violate Just War in that they have discrimination, imminence, proportionality, and probability (Tooley). Some also believe that they may generate more war because it is easier to make decisions. Kerr wonders if we even have the capacity to make such robots. Although it is unclear where this UAV direction will lead society, it is quickly returning questions of ethicality in warfare and just war into the minds of everyday people. Some countries are outlawing UAVs, others are encouraging their use (Kerr). Protests are being held daily, showing that, as always, Just War is one of society’s deepest questions.
For thousands of years, standards of ethicality in and going to war have been in question. Certain criteria have been independently established globally, suggesting that under these circumstances, yes, war can be justified. Although met with religious and ethical disagreement, many have showed that war can be justified. Although these circumstances are rare and far between, wars can be just, although they are not always, and, some feel, these circumstances are even more rare today. With the advent of recent technologies, these ethicality lines are beginning to blur further, but as long as these ancient moral codes are withheld, they will guide society to show if a war is justified, and indeed, it could be.