There are many things that must be consider when looking at whether or not the end of a given situation was justified by the means in which were used to get there. The biggest of which is what was the cost to achieve the desired outcome. Was it a loss of life, damage to property, financial cost, or un-repairable damage to relationships whether personal or political? Could any of these been avoided and still achieve the same outcome? This has been a topic of debate on many things in our nations history, from war, to political races, to everyday life.
In today’s world where there are so many conflicts, battles, and wars happen all at the same time it is very important to ensure that the means that are being used will be justified in the end. From the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan to civil conflicts taking place in Sudan and regions of the former Soviet Union conflicts are happening everywhere. Are these conflicts just or will the outcome not outweigh the losses that will inevitably happen. One such case that we can look at to see if the end did justify the means is by looking at both ...
The analysis over Crawford’s definition for Just War Theory can reinforces the statement above. Crawford’s argument talks about the prevention of greater harm as long as “moral judgments about right action [are] rooted” toward each particular component of the definition. However, it was noted that Crawford’s conclusion about terrorist wasn’t completely true and excluding them from the Just War Theory was more complicated. Byford uses different arguments to explain the difficulty of excluding terrorists as states. Within his comparison there are different war times when states acted as radical as terrorist but we never labeled them as
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
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.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
First, war is universal due to its violent nature, violence in its application knows no bounds, and it is the common factor that identifies the war and without it the war is nothing more than a diplomatic effort to reach the end. However, wars blow out only when the diplomacy fails. Violence is the war engine. Although the application of violence evolved through time and its severity varies according to communities, cultures, and the means and methods used. Demonstrating the violence through the application of force to subjugate the enemy is the central idea of war. “War is a clash between major interests,
There have been sustained attempts to understand the nature of war. Carl von Clausewitz in his posthumously published book ‘’On War’’ (1832) concludes with the sentence- “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will”. In basic terms reciprocity and use of force, according to him, are the central elements of any war. However, I strongly feel that every war is deep rooted into many layers of complexities rather than any two identifiable central elements. Whether one wages a war for instinctive rather than deliberative reasons (choice vs. survival) or as a means to an end, it involves a fight not just between armies, ammunitions, states or geographies but also between sentiments, emotions, lives and homes. Any war is never between two armies or states alone, it is the struggle of millions who may not be out there on the battlefield but are nevertheless
The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists hold that all of these criteria must be followed for a war to be just. I will analyze The Just War Theories most debated arguments, self-defense, pre-emptive strikes, and the killing of innocents. In the second half of this paper, I will briefly explain Pacifism, and provide a counter argument for each Just War argument.
Human conflict is among the most complex topics in the world. It has always occurred alongside the existence of humanity, and often it escalates to violence and warfare. This has been a cycle throughout history, and there has not been much evidence pointing to the end of it. With no foreseen end to this cycle combined with a population that has an ever expanding curiosity, humans have had to justify going to war. Individuals tend to be very passionate and emotionally connected to their beliefs and thus they enjoy being right. They have justified violence and war with this innate desire to be right, and for this reason they have become the most common method for resolving human conflict; but at what cost? Life. Unity. Respect. These are concepts
Does the end ever really justify the means? This is a phrase that is quite common amongst readers, namely when reading a tragedy such as The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. When reading this drama, a person may sit and ponder this question for quite some time, depending on what side they agree with and how the “justice” was portrayed, and decide if it was even justice at all. My personal opinion on this question after reading Julius Caesar is that the end does justify the means, as I believe Caesar got what he deserved for being such a tyrant in Rome. The use of rhetoric that Shakespeare portrays throughout a majority of the drama can explain a lot in how a person may interpret the question “Does the end ever justify the means?” I personally was drawn to the side of agreement with the conspirators, due to the way that I interpreted the writing through Shakespeare’s use of rhetoric.
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
War is one of the few constants throughout human history. It is a method of self-defense or of establishing natural rights or of resolving issues not rectified through the use of diplomatic methods of peace. It has reached every nation and every time period, and despite what some may believe it is a morally justifiable action.
Wrong is Wrong Saying that “the ends justify the means” is an invalid statement, those agreeing with this statement obviously believe that killing, stealing, and cheating does not matter as long as it has a good outcome and the goal is obtained. The phrase “the ends justify the means” refers to the morality of an action,which basically means “A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it.” (End Justifies the Means, the). This topic is among the most controversial subjects discussed today.