Amoral realism- The realist part of this is the exercise of power- the realise of power- while the amoral part of it is that it is exercised without reference to a moral language. Instead it is a question of desire, glory, non moral motivations.
Moral Realism- The realist part is, once again, the view that power can be exercised without any priori restraints on the basis of rights- so that it is consequentialist theory- but the ends to which power is exercised must themselves be framed in a moral language.
when is it right to go to war?
1) WAR MUST BE A JUST CAUSE- Jus ad bellum ( before war)
A war is only just if it is fought for a reason that is justified and that carries sufficient moral weight. The just cause is to put right a wrong or to prevent a wrong from happening, for example to save life or protect human rights; to secure justice or remedy injustice.
2) WAR MUST BE DECLARED BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Only war declared by the government or ruler of the state with the legitimate authority to declare war can be a just war, although in the islamic concept of Jihad, the legitimate authority is that of a religious leader. The japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941 is a famous example of an attack made before the legitimate authority had declared war.
3) THERE MUST BE JUST INTENTION
The intention must be as just as the cause, i.e. a war should not be undertaken with the deliberate intention of assassinating a country's leader or in a spirit of hatred or revenge. Just intentions might include restoring peace, righting a wrong or assisting the innocent.
4) THERE MUST BE COMPARISON OF JUSTICE ON BOTH SIDES.
Both sides of the conflict should be examined and compared and, in principle, both should have a just reason to take up arms.
5) WAR MUST BE A LAST RESORT.
War should only be resorted to after all negotiations, arbitration and non-military sanctions have failed.
6) THERE SHOULD BE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS.
This stems from the idea that war is great evil and that it is wrong to cause death, pain and suffering if there is no chance of success. There should be a realistic prospect of the outcome of resulting in a better state of affairs than before the war. Peace and Justice must be restored afterwards. However, it may be necessary, for example, to fight a larger force in order to protect innocent people.
7) PROPORTIONALITY
There must be a proportionate response between the injustice that led to the war and the damage, suffering and death caused by the war itself. Excessive or disproportionate violence should be avoided: 'the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms'
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
The just War theory mainly talks about the first perspective, jus ad bellum. In case a country or nation has been invaded without provoking the other nation then it is acceptable to exercise force in order to defend itself. From such a situation three just causes can be deduced; self-defense from aggression, the defense from others from aggression and armed involvement in a non -aggressive country where…
- 2412 Words
- 10 Pages
Better Essays -
The Americans knew they had the weaker ground, since they were fighting on unfamiliar territory, let alone the fact that they were battling with standard, traditional warfare against a new, unknown style of warfare. Knowing this, and knowing that they were on the back foot, president Johnson still issued the orders to proceed with the war. This means that he and his generals were willingly subjecting their soldiers to combat on unfamiliar ground, against unfamiliar tactics. It was essentially subjecting them to their death. Even though, they still proceeded, which is unjust to the American soldiers. Knowing they cannot deny the orders, the Americans had to use un-conventional tactics of their own. Leading onto the third aspect of just war that I am discussing, the means of combat used. Since the Americans had the weaker strategies, they decided that it would be completely honorable, and morally acceptable to pillage homes of those who lived in peace and had nothing to do with the war. Then they proceeded to resort to rape, and other unethical means of…
- 1694 Words
- 7 Pages
Best Essays -
Williams Jr., R. E. (2009) book review of Fiala, A.’s The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War, Springer Science + Business…
- 3976 Words
- 16 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The first three conditions necessary for a just war were listed by Aquinas which included right authority, just cause and just intention. These and…
- 1943 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Below is a free essay on "10 Commandments" from Anti Essays, your source for free research papers, essays, and term paper examples.…
- 351 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
There have been many wars come this day and age. They included much bloodshed and death. One of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world was the Battle of Stalingrad. This war was the turning point for the Allies in their fight against Germany, but with nearly 2 Million Civilian/Military Casualties, was this battle justified? The Just War theory provides a basis as to whether a war was just or evil and this will be applied to the Battle of Stalingrad to perceive whether or not this battle meets with the 3 different Jus in Bello / Jus Ad Bellum criteria necessary to be a just war.…
- 1031 Words
- 5 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The part of the just war theory is called jus ad bellum. There must be a just cause, right authority, proportionality, the goal of peace, with war as a last resort. A country cannot attack another country for more wealth or for more respect. They must attack on behalf of an innocent third country or group. Right authority means that war must be declared by the proper authorities and not by private companies. Proportionality means that the potential war must be assessed regarding the cost of the war and the benefits from the war. The country must also decide whether or not the potential gains outweigh the loss of human lives and the cost of the war. Next, “will the destructiveness of the proposed conflict outweigh any enhancement of other human values?” That means will the war any enhance aspects of the human life more than the violence that will occur during the war. The purpose of the war must be for peace, not solely to win glory. Finally, the war must be a last resort, meaning that all other methods for peace must be attempted before resorting to…
- 1545 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
Force should be used when there are legitimate reasons for using it, and when it is the last resort for the government, who is responsible for civic peace. Elshtain uses Augustine to discuss justice and war. A paradox between war and peace is introduced, Elshtain uses an Augustine quote to discuss the similarity of two words that are complete polar opposites, “Peace and war had a contest in cruelty, and peace won the prize.” In history, there are many instances where evil and horrible things are done in the name of ‘peace’. Elshtain continues with the early Christian beliefs that under Jesus’ teaches forbid force in anyway, even under authority. Later, it transforms to the necessity of force to protect others. This leads to the four qualifications that Elshtain wrote to justify a war, the first is that the war must be publicly declared by a legitimate jurisdiction. The second criteria is that an unjust violence must have occurred against the government’s own people or a defenseless group. Third, the war has to be start with the proper motives. Finally, all other alternatives must be exhausted before leading to war. In the end, Elshtain includes a final criteria that must be met for a war to be ‘just’, the possibility of actually winning the conflict. If there is no chance of succeeding, the conflict should not be…
- 634 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
An example for going into a war due to involvement by the country, is the French involvement in Vietnam. Due to colonizing Vietnam, the French didn’t want to lose said area; so they went to war. Second, is alliances. Alliances are a strategic reason to become involved in a war, because then when your country needs the help, alliances will have your back. Countries without alliances are at risk for attack or imperialism. The third reason of benefits for a country is a risky justification. Many Americans were dissatisfied with US involvement in the Frist Gulf War due to the hidden reason of wanting to obtain Kuwait’s special oil. However, benefits such as stopping terrorism by being involved in the War on Terror are more than enough. If lives will be saved in the long run by going to war, the war is just. Lastly, a just reason for going to war would be if injustices are happening. The only example needed more this rationale is the countless lives lost when Adolf Hitler decided that those not of his Aryan ideal could be wasted. War is not an end all to problems, but it is at times, the only…
- 757 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
This article “Just War Tradition” also refer to as Just War Theory is related to war because it explains the principles and morals behind on taking war as a last resort solution only if the options don't meet the requirements. Also, in the case of war was to happen they discussed on when and where warfare is appropriate to be taken place. Including that, the Just War Tradition was originally discovered by the Christians and their based it on their philosophy. Then theorist Saint Augustine made who made other factions to their philosophy for a better outcome. As years passed another theorist named Michael Walzer stepped in but this time around modernize the principles. The government must apply two principles the first principle is Jus ad Bellum…
- 346 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The purpose of the War Convention is to establish the duties of the persons engaged in the act of aggression. Michael Walzer defined the War Convention as the articulated norms, customs, professional codes, precepts, religious, philosophical principles and reciprocal arrangements that shape our judgement of military conduct. Thus, the War Convention may be interpreted as the multitude of non-binding moral criteria by which the justice of actions within the prosecution of conflict may be judged. The concern is with jus in bello, justice in war, and not jus ad bellum, which regards the just initiation of war. The distinction between the justice of war and the just prosecution of war is significant for the purpose of this essay, for it is the…
- 1912 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
What justifies war? Who justifies it? Why as human beings do we feel the need to fight, harm, and kill others to achieve certain goals? These questions have been pertinent to our society since the beginning of time and continue to challenge us to better understand the human psyche, and code of ethics that give Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines credence to kill in the name of the United States of America. These ethics of war lay the foundation for that code of understanding and righteousness for when it is justifiable to pull the trigger and take the life of another, or commit an act of war.…
- 1946 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
I have puzzled over this. How can a war be truly just when it involves the daily killing of civilians, when it causes hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to leave their homes to escape the bombs, when it may not find those who planned the September 11 attacks, and when it will multiply the ranks of people who are angry enough at this country to become terrorists themselves?…
- 2986 Words
- 12 Pages
Powerful Essays -
When is war acceptable? That is the question that the Just War theory (jus bellum iustum) attempts to answer. Guided by an evolving set of criteria, this tradition attempts to provide a framework by which the both the reasons for a war and the combatants' behavior may be judged to be ethical and morally justifiable. This theory or doctrine, has roots in both philosophical and historical contexts, having been shaped by conventions and rules observed through ages of war as well as the thoughts of philosophers of those same ages. These principles are divided into two parts: 'the right to go to war' (jus ad bellum), which concerns itself with whether it is justifiable…
- 1505 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by the human race. There are many different reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party and anger burns with a fiery passion, war is the last remaining option. Obviously, the purpose of any war is to win. How are wars won? Perhaps if we were to ask a member of the Defense Department during the early stages of the war in Iraq, his answer might be, “To win this war we must force the enemy into submission by means of ethical warfare.” If we were to ask a marine in the Second World War what he was told by his commanding officer he would reply, “To close with the enemy and destroy him.” (Fussell, 763).…
- 1089 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays