Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The core idea of just war theory
Concept of just war
Concept of just war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Walter Wink's “Beyond Just War and Pacifism,” Wink interprets . He believes that instead of us taking nonviolence as not fighting back and letting ourselves be attacked. We should instead try to find nonviolent, but is not a cowardly submission, way to fight back against the evil.
Wink believes that although Jesus does not propose armed revolution. He does lay the ground work for social revolutions. He believes Jesus wanted us to have an active nonviolent resistance to evil. One that was not passive but instead aggressive and courageous.
He describes how all this was the view of the Christian church until they came under the “‘conversion’ of Constantine” (Wink 288). Here, Christianity became directly tied to that of the empires, and making the enemies of the empire the Churches enemies and bringing into the world the just war way of thinking.
…show more content…
The problem is that these few criteria for a just war aren’t easy to apply. According to Wink the criteria themselves is not the problem “but the fact that they have been subordinated to the myth of redemptive violence” (Wink 290). Making the just war theory a way to try and justify wars that are unjustifiable. Leading him to believe we should instead change the just war criteria to violence-reduction criteria, since that is what we are all after in the long run. He believes this will be a good medium for both advocates of nonviolence and the just
Although there was no compassionate relationship between the “eastern and western branches of Christianity,” Pope Urban II of Europe was aware of the Islamic threat to the Byzantium Empire and was subject to support the eastern branch after he heard about the oppression forced on his fellow Christians. In November of 1095, Foss Claims, “Pope Urban II was determined to save the honour and the soul of Europe.” Throughout his book Foss identifies the persuasive speech at the Council of Claremont, the siege of Antioch, and Capture of the Holy
In the novel, My Brother Sam is Dead, by James and Christopher Collier, they teach that there are many other ways to solve conflict besides war. War is violent, disgusting, and gruesome and so many people die in war. Families separate in war because of how many people want to be in the thrill of the war and also how many innocent family members die in the midst of war. Lastly, war is worthless and it was caused by a disagreement over something little and the outcome of war is not worth the many lives, time, and money and there are other ways to solve conflict besides to fight. War causes so many negative outcomes on this world that it needs to be avoided at all costs.
The First Crusade is often cited as one of the most damnable consequences of religious fanaticism. A careful inspection of the circumstances and outcomes, however, will reveal a resultant political restructuring of Europe under the banner of Christendom. The purpose of this investigation is to investigate Pope Urban II’s motives in initiating the First Crusade, with a particular focus on the consolidation of the Western Church’s influence in Europe. Among the primary sources that will be consulted are the letter sent by Patriach Alexios of Constantinople to Urban, and an account of Urban’s speech at Clermont. Relevant excerpts from both of these primary sources, as well as contextual evidence and a wide array of historiography, will be taken
Pope Urban II naturally had a religious control over his people and when he gave his speech at the Council of Clermont in November 1905, he constantly referred to it as the will of God. His speech reminded them that the Crusades were their “concerns as well as God’s” . Throughout his speech, the Pope is constantly trying to align the need for men to fight with t...
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
...fists can be uneffective in a war minded society. If an aggressor is attacking with no opposition, one cannot rely on the morality of the aggressors to halt the attack. Intervention of the attacks would be impermissible by the standards of absolute pacifism, as it would contribute to the overall amount of violence. The absolute pacifist would become a martyr for their beliefs, and without opposing the aggressive force societies would be annihilated. I believe while pacifism is morally better than war in terms of the amount of violence projected, and diplomatic negotiation should be the main solution to world issues, it is a commonality of society that war can potentially be the quickest solution to stop an aggressor. Although the notion of a Just War is unattainable, the causes of war as described in the theory set a standard for global leaders to promote justice.
requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just
Eusebius’ account of Constantine’s conversion is comparable to Gregory of Tours’ accounts of Clovis’ and Gundobad’s conversions to Christianity, in the sense that they all initially called upon the “Christ-God” (albeit Gundobad perhaps indirectly) to come to their aid, which he did, during periods of military crisis. The si...
...able to showcase the great power that nonviolence could have on the world and how by using methods such as that one would be more successful than if one used violence. As Mahatma Gandhi once said “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”
...s toward peace”. Proving that being pacifist does not necessarily mean that war is unacceptable, it can also stand for bringing peace by a different point of view.
Throughout the ten-century, particularly in France, the world had become an extremely violent place. Feudal Knights were often quarreling over land possession, looting, and looking to lay people to provide them with sustenance . Likewise, the power of these knights and the extent of violence flourished due to the increasingly lacking power and authority of the kings . The Church, in an attempt to halt the violence and anarchy attempted to take control and issued such concepts as “the Peace of God” . Similarly, at this time other movements for peace by the Church were underway, and one of the commonly held ideas was the need to transform the world to more “monkish ideals”. From these ideals also sprouted the concept of the laity having “God-given functions to perform, functions that could include fighting to protect the Church”. Pope Leo IX (1049-1054) is an example of this idea; he often used militia to fight against his opponents. In the early eleventh century, there came a pivotal figure in the ideas of Church sanctioned war, Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085). Pope Gregory was involved in the Investiture Contest, and soon turned to scholars to seek out “justification for his conviction that violence could be used in defense of the Church and could be authorized by it”. The movements generated by Pope Gregory, as well as the results of the Inve...
There is a considerable debate about the precise meaning of nonviolence. Some people believe that nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence. In other words, nonviolence is a method for resolving a conflict without the use of physical power nor enmity towards opponents. Instead, it emphasizes you to look beyond convictions and one’s urge for victory, it is the motto behind the saying “hate the sin and not the sinner”. For others it is a way of living and an essential part of their values and norms, for those people, nonviolence is the road which will lead them towards attaining inner piece and moral satisfaction. “Learn and teach nonviolence as a way of life; reflect it in attitude, speech and action” say’s Gerber in his article The Road to Nonviolence. Thus making nonviolence the ultimate behavior towards achieving truthful, spiritual, loving life. Mahatma Gandhi, the nonviolence guru, defines nonviolence as “a power which can be wielded equally by all-children, young men and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind”. (mkgandhi.org) Therefore we understand that nonviolence has some terms and conditions to be met; living faith in God, truthfulness, humility, tolerance, loving kindness, honesty and the willingness to sacrifice. ...
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.