The Moral Dichotomy: The Vietnam War
THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN VIETNAM WAR
The moral judgement on the vietnam war is relatively simple: all war is forbidden, the conflict in vietnam is war, therefore the vietnam war is forbidden. From the viewpoint of the “just war” theory, the morality or justice of the vietnam war can be determined only by applying the principles of jus ad bellum and details of vietnam war. There are 6 of the principles of the jus ad bellum:
1. Just Cause: ‘War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger” i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence, and to secure basic human rights.’
2. Competent Authority: ‘War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups …show more content…
or individuals.’
3. Right Intention: ‘War can be legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.’
4. Last Resort: ‘For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.’
5. Probability of Success: This criterion is not precisely stated but the bishops affirm that ‘its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.’
6. Proportionality: ‘The damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.
The first one is just cause, the american case in vietnam war by military intervention is ideals that we can approve, even though we may be highly doubtful about the alleged factual for the statements of those ideals.
In short, the Vietnam war started as a result of U.S strategy of containment during the Cold War, which aimed to prevent the spread of communism throughout the world. The President Johnson summarized that american purpose invaded Vietnam is to make sure every country can shape its own destiny because the North want spread their communism to the South Vietnam. The aggression from the North also must be stopped. The US also claim that they was there to strengthen world order which involves waging war to make the country’s promises credible to …show more content…
others.
Almost all nations allege “aggression” as a pretext for war. But the main question here is has agression occured in Vietnam? No. Vietnam is legally single nation by the Geneva agreements of 1954, so that any factional struggles within it constitute civil conflict. The only foreign nations which have troops in Vietnam are the Americans and their allies. So, we must conclude that the factual basis for many of the proclaimed objectives is either absent entirely or is highly doubtful. Thus if agression has in fact committed, it may be held to be a legitimate cause for war. But aggression in the usual sense has not occured. And so with the other objectives. We may sum up the issue of just cause in brief terms, given the context and factual basis of the American cause, the war is unjust.
Then Competent Authority means War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals. In sum, while the "government' of the United States is "legitimate" by the standard of diplomatic recognition and a kind of general consent on the part of the people, the President of that government illegally exercised the war power in Vietnam. Hence he was not really acting as a public official but rather as a private authority who happened to be fortunate enough to obtain money for private purposes from Congress. If respect for the fundamental principles of constitutional law be a criterion of "morality," then the Vietnamese war cannot be sustained. This cloudy title to lawful authority is made even more cloudy when we recall, as a noted in international law, that American actions in Vietnam have violated Article 37 of the UN Charter, that describes all of the procedure that should be taken by government before they can take military action. The US did not raise the question alleged aggression before the Security Council, yet it was both legally and morally to do so. We must consider the president of the US action as unlawful from the viewpoint of American constitutional law and also illegal from the standpoint of the UN charter. The intention of the government must be just, not only nust clearly cause be just but that which moves a government to pursue the cause must also be morally acceptable. Thus, agression must not be opposed with the primary intention, for example, of keeping in power a ruling clique which might be deposed if agression were to succeed. The difficulty may be illustrated in the case of the war in Vietnam by recalling many statements expressing an intent on the part of Americans to withdraw just as soon as aggression is checked or the Vietnamese people have begun to govern themselves. This statements seem to have the equality justice. All things considered, it would seem that the intent of the United States, morally speaking, is very cloudy one at best. It is at least reasonably probable that this country intends to to remain in Southeast Asia over considerable number of years and to dominate nearby stations. If the United States does intend to occupy Vietnam for a generation or more, then the intent is unjust, for it implies a species of imperialism under the guise of protection against tyranny and aggression. As for the intention of Hanoi and the NLF, it is different between them. It is possible that the intent of the former is to dominate all of vietnam without giving the inhabitants much of free choice. In that way, the Hanoi’s intent could conceivably clash with that of the NLF, which may be a spokesman for South Vietnamese sentiment, as over against the views of the northerners. If the real intentions of Hanoi and NLF are primarily along these lines, one can surely condemn them, particularly in the light of Hanoi’s not too nice respect for human life as it consolidated its power in the north.
War must be the only possible means of securing justice (last resort) depends on what one means by justice in the context of Vietnamese events. The united states use the requirements of jus ad bellum to embrace such goals as a reasonable national autonomy, basic economic reform, rule by law, and an elimination of the last vestiges of imperialist control. The burden of proof must always be on those who advocate war. Assuming for the moment that there are indeed wars which can help secure justice, we should point out that other methods in the search for justice have not really been tried in vietnam, therefore international remedies have not been pursued in all their abilities.
From my understanding, the united states use the morality in this war by using the requirement of last resort. For example, United states use the term to embrace such goals as a reasonable national autonomy. Vietnam has become the playing fields for international powers politics, the victims being the vietnamese themselves and the national aspirations become increasingly incidental, as the southern power structure is linked more and more to the united states and the northern to the soviet union and china.
There Must Be a Reasonable Hope of Victory (probability of success).
In most wars, the hope for immediate military victory is high, but in all too many wars, the expectation is not fulfilled. Military victory in the vietnamese war can probably be attained by the united states, but only at an enormous cost. Ten years of continuous destruction might be involved , so that in the end the victory will dictact terms in a largely depopulated nation whose people he had come to protect, such a victory would be one only in the name. It is sometimes said that victory for the united nations would consist in bringing the opposing side to the conference table. Only through withdrawl of all american forces could conditions for long run political settlement be promoted given prevalent attitudes in vietnam.
A continuation of the war is not necessary to make withdrawal possible, a basic change of attiude is sufficient. The means of imperialist and exploitation are war and violence, if would be liberators employ imperialist means they will emerge with new guises of imperialist ends. The war cannot led to victory, wheather military or political, except at such cost and under such circumstances as to make the victory little short of
disaster.
The Good To Be Attained by Victory Must Outweigh the Probable Evil Effect of the War (proportionality). The war involves in its train vast destruction of human life. The remote evils set in motion by the war will be stimulation of hatred. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the good attained by military victory could possibly outhweight evil of these kinds. American or other foreign military power would dominate vietnam for a long period. And the country in either case would lie ruined to an even greater extent than today. The war will have made more difficult any serious grappling with these issue whorever is victorious.
The moral judgement on the vietnam war is relatively simple: all war is forbidden, the conflict in vietnam is war, therefore the vietnam war is forbidden. From the viewpoint of the “just war” theory, the morality or justice of the vietnam war can be determined only by applying the principles of jus ad bellum and details of vietnam war. There are 6 of the principles of the jus ad bellum:
1. Just Cause: ‘War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger” i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence, and to secure basic human rights.’
2. Competent Authority: ‘War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups …show more content…
or individuals.’
3. Right Intention: ‘War can be legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.’
4. Last Resort: ‘For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.’
5. Probability of Success: This criterion is not precisely stated but the bishops affirm that ‘its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.’
6. Proportionality: ‘The damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.
The first one is just cause, the american case in vietnam war by military intervention is ideals that we can approve, even though we may be highly doubtful about the alleged factual for the statements of those ideals.
In short, the Vietnam war started as a result of U.S strategy of containment during the Cold War, which aimed to prevent the spread of communism throughout the world. The President Johnson summarized that american purpose invaded Vietnam is to make sure every country can shape its own destiny because the North want spread their communism to the South Vietnam. The aggression from the North also must be stopped. The US also claim that they was there to strengthen world order which involves waging war to make the country’s promises credible to …show more content…
others.
Almost all nations allege “aggression” as a pretext for war. But the main question here is has agression occured in Vietnam? No. Vietnam is legally single nation by the Geneva agreements of 1954, so that any factional struggles within it constitute civil conflict. The only foreign nations which have troops in Vietnam are the Americans and their allies. So, we must conclude that the factual basis for many of the proclaimed objectives is either absent entirely or is highly doubtful. Thus if agression has in fact committed, it may be held to be a legitimate cause for war. But aggression in the usual sense has not occured. And so with the other objectives. We may sum up the issue of just cause in brief terms, given the context and factual basis of the American cause, the war is unjust.
Then Competent Authority means War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals. In sum, while the "government' of the United States is "legitimate" by the standard of diplomatic recognition and a kind of general consent on the part of the people, the President of that government illegally exercised the war power in Vietnam. Hence he was not really acting as a public official but rather as a private authority who happened to be fortunate enough to obtain money for private purposes from Congress. If respect for the fundamental principles of constitutional law be a criterion of "morality," then the Vietnamese war cannot be sustained. This cloudy title to lawful authority is made even more cloudy when we recall, as a noted in international law, that American actions in Vietnam have violated Article 37 of the UN Charter, that describes all of the procedure that should be taken by government before they can take military action. The US did not raise the question alleged aggression before the Security Council, yet it was both legally and morally to do so. We must consider the president of the US action as unlawful from the viewpoint of American constitutional law and also illegal from the standpoint of the UN charter. The intention of the government must be just, not only nust clearly cause be just but that which moves a government to pursue the cause must also be morally acceptable. Thus, agression must not be opposed with the primary intention, for example, of keeping in power a ruling clique which might be deposed if agression were to succeed. The difficulty may be illustrated in the case of the war in Vietnam by recalling many statements expressing an intent on the part of Americans to withdraw just as soon as aggression is checked or the Vietnamese people have begun to govern themselves. This statements seem to have the equality justice. All things considered, it would seem that the intent of the United States, morally speaking, is very cloudy one at best. It is at least reasonably probable that this country intends to to remain in Southeast Asia over considerable number of years and to dominate nearby stations. If the United States does intend to occupy Vietnam for a generation or more, then the intent is unjust, for it implies a species of imperialism under the guise of protection against tyranny and aggression. As for the intention of Hanoi and the NLF, it is different between them. It is possible that the intent of the former is to dominate all of vietnam without giving the inhabitants much of free choice. In that way, the Hanoi’s intent could conceivably clash with that of the NLF, which may be a spokesman for South Vietnamese sentiment, as over against the views of the northerners. If the real intentions of Hanoi and NLF are primarily along these lines, one can surely condemn them, particularly in the light of Hanoi’s not too nice respect for human life as it consolidated its power in the north.
War must be the only possible means of securing justice (last resort) depends on what one means by justice in the context of Vietnamese events. The united states use the requirements of jus ad bellum to embrace such goals as a reasonable national autonomy, basic economic reform, rule by law, and an elimination of the last vestiges of imperialist control. The burden of proof must always be on those who advocate war. Assuming for the moment that there are indeed wars which can help secure justice, we should point out that other methods in the search for justice have not really been tried in vietnam, therefore international remedies have not been pursued in all their abilities.
From my understanding, the united states use the morality in this war by using the requirement of last resort. For example, United states use the term to embrace such goals as a reasonable national autonomy. Vietnam has become the playing fields for international powers politics, the victims being the vietnamese themselves and the national aspirations become increasingly incidental, as the southern power structure is linked more and more to the united states and the northern to the soviet union and china.
There Must Be a Reasonable Hope of Victory (probability of success).
In most wars, the hope for immediate military victory is high, but in all too many wars, the expectation is not fulfilled. Military victory in the vietnamese war can probably be attained by the united states, but only at an enormous cost. Ten years of continuous destruction might be involved , so that in the end the victory will dictact terms in a largely depopulated nation whose people he had come to protect, such a victory would be one only in the name. It is sometimes said that victory for the united nations would consist in bringing the opposing side to the conference table. Only through withdrawl of all american forces could conditions for long run political settlement be promoted given prevalent attitudes in vietnam.
A continuation of the war is not necessary to make withdrawal possible, a basic change of attiude is sufficient. The means of imperialist and exploitation are war and violence, if would be liberators employ imperialist means they will emerge with new guises of imperialist ends. The war cannot led to victory, wheather military or political, except at such cost and under such circumstances as to make the victory little short of
disaster.
The Good To Be Attained by Victory Must Outweigh the Probable Evil Effect of the War (proportionality). The war involves in its train vast destruction of human life. The remote evils set in motion by the war will be stimulation of hatred. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the good attained by military victory could possibly outhweight evil of these kinds. American or other foreign military power would dominate vietnam for a long period. And the country in either case would lie ruined to an even greater extent than today. The war will have made more difficult any serious grappling with these issue whorever is victorious.