ISIS launching a series of terrorist attacks against American embassies in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Libya would certainly warrant the United States to launch a war against ISIS. This is ethically justified through the jus ad bellum condition of proportionality to the means of war, and the jus post bellum because the war would ultimately re-establish a peace preferable to the peace that existed before the war. The President’s plan for military action in response to ISIS terrorist attacks is justified on both just war theory, and the utilitarian, common good, and virtue ethical frameworks.
The war would be justified by the theory of just war in ad bellum and post bellum. The jus ad bellum requirement is met because because the proportionality, or the ends of war, are proportional to the means of war. The means of war here is the war against ISIS with 100,000 troops on the ground
…show more content…
The utilitarian framework takes into account the benefits and the harm that the war could cost and which alternative will lead to the best outcome with the least harm. (Andre et al. 1996) The virtue ethical component considers which course of action will build good moral virtues, and lastly, the common good tries to accomplish common good. The US engaging in the war is a decision that chooses war and defeating this terrorist regime as the alternative that will lead to the best outcome. (Andre et al. 1996)
From the utilitarian framework responding with military troops will definitely harm ISIS soldiers, and ISIS itself, however this will ultimately help the entire world population to be safe from attacks. The President’s plan for military intervention against ISIS has the potential to defeat ISIS and thus keep the world free from harm from this organization in the future. This plan may also harm US soldiers, but it will ultimately lead to the best outcome, and the least harm in the long
Just War Theory has three components jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Each of the components can explain what makes a war just and moral. Jus ad bellum or just initiation of war is achieved if a state has a just cause, uses armed conflict after all other means are exhausted, if it has a right intention to go into war, if there is a chance of success, and if it the ends of the war are equal to the means of war. The
A synthesis essay should be organized so that others can understand the sources and evaluate your comprehension of them and their presentation of specific data, themes, etc.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
The war of September 11, 2001, is war justified? In the case of self-defense, it can be. This was not an act of war, but of terrorism. There were no massed armies at United States doors open ready to take over. The plane bombing of three buildings resulted in many deaths and much monitory hardship. This is not a border confrontation, nor an invasion trying to take over. The body of United States was not in threat of losing life or limb. It was just hit with a well planned attack to wake it up and make it smell the coffee. The resulting bombs and missile attacks in Afghanistan are not justified at all, as people there are dying too. The people dying were not threatening United States with guns drawn. There are a handful of people who are responsible for the attack on United States. It would be warranted to kill those people, if they were actively ca...
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
Morality is hard to define, and nearly impossible to agree upon; however, when it comes to war, there is a single “widely accepted moral theory” that reaches beyond borders . Just war theory, a doctrine originally attributed to the Christian theologian Saint Augustine , postulates that certain circumstances can lead to the justification of war, particularly if war is used to prevent even greater atrocities from occurring in the future. In its fundamental charter, the United Nations even articulates that every state has the right to go to war in its charter. In its broadest definition, just war theory declares that war may be justifiable if the states involved have both jus ad bellum, or just cause, and jus in bello, or just conduct in war;
It’s astounding how easy it is to forget that we are at war. Just recently, the Obama administration has declared war against ISIS. During his ISIS war speech, he refers to the enemy as “barbarians, terrorists and monsters”. He also promised to defeat ISIS, without the use of ground troops (Winsor). We do not like to watch our fellow Americans deployed to dangerous oversea locations. The President bashes ISIS and promises not to get completely involved with the conflict in order to gain support for the war. Unfortunately, his tactics are ineffective. A survey conducted by CNN shows that about 57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is conducting his war on ISIS (CNN). Additionally, about 40% of Americans don’t believe we should fight ISIS
Even though the just war theory could be considered a consequence of an action or a series of actions, the violence involved in its conduct is and will always be at odds with the basic values of civilization. Nevertheless, the just war theory asserts the act of war may, under certain circumstances, be morally justified. While the theory is divided into several sections, I will only be focusing on the “jus ad bellum” section or the justice to resort to war that concerns the morality of going to war. For war to be just, it must be conducted in order to resist aggression, to prevent the annihilation of a populace, and fought with the right intention, thus affirming a just cause making the just war theory deontological rather than consequentialist.
Justice in warfare has become an influential perspective. In particular the moral implication highlights the core importance of the ‘Just War’ theory. The principle was first established in ancient Rome 106-43 BC by Roman Philosopher Cicero, he stated that, ‘no war is considered just, unless it is preceded by an official demand for satisfaction or warning, and a formal declaration has been made’, (Cicero, 1913, p.38-39). Therefore, it is precedent that a war is established under the principle of justice. The theory was further coined by Roman Christian Philosopher, Augustine of Hippo (345-430 BC) and later carried on by Aquinas (1274 BC). The principle was used to pursue the question on when it was permissible to wage a war and the conduct of a war. Both Christian and Greek philosophers had conflicts on when and how to fight in a war. Therefore, the moral objective for both philosophers was to establish peace. During this period, Aquinas became one of the most influential philosophers on the just war principle. He argues that for a war to be just, it has to fulfil three criteria, ‘(1),the war had to be conducted not privately but under authority of a prince, (2) there had to be a just cause for the war, (3) it was necessary to have the right intention to promote good and avoid evil’, (Dinstein, 2005, p.64). Aquinas emphasises that the principle of jus ad bellum focuses on the moral justification for war. Whereas, the moral conduct of war is implemented through the principle of jus in Bello. Therefore, it can evaluated that the just war theory implements a set of rules to justify military warfare.
In “Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq, Alex Bellamy argues that war is only justified in exceptional cases where “supreme humanitarian intervention” is genuinely required (Bellamy, p. 137). Bellamy discusses the ethics of intervention and the decision of the US to invade Iraq. He provides the argument that international law does not provide moral reasoning on the issues of war. However, he acknowledges that it does provide an important foundation on the issue of legitimacy of war. He discusses two legal justifications for war, which include implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defense of that state. Neither of these is the case in Iraq, although the government may say
The Just war theory is a doctrine that has been studied by all sorts of leaders, religions, and especially military leaders. Basically it is a doctrine that consists of all sorts of military ethics of war and broken down into two parts, Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Just ad bellum is consisted of 5 parts, the first part is legitimate authority and what that means is that the people who are making the decision of war are recognized officials and understand the strategies of war. The second reason is for a just cause, having the right reasons for going to war and understanding that violent aggression is not the plan. The third is that the last resort is going to war, and being able to understand that before a country starts a war that can be solved in less violent ways. The fourth option is prospect of success, yes winning the war is a success but how many lives can be lost and still count that as a success. The final option is the political proportionality and that is when the wrong of war is proportionally less then the wars cons. I believe that if all non violent options of Just ad bellum have been tried and were given a fair shot and the only viable option is to go to war then going to war is acceptable. But if all non violent option shave not been exhausted and war is nothing but a quick decision this can be considered wrong and
It is said that Western civilization had been primarily male dominated and as a result as diminished the feminine. Women’s roles in society have changed drastically over the past decades. While it took much time, progress for women’s rights has blossomed. Influences in civilization have affected view points of the commonly held mores, expectations, and stereotypes which define gender.
Television has affected every aspect of life in society, radically changing the way individuals live and interact with the world. However, change is not always for the better, especially the influence of television on political campaigns towards presidency. Since the 1960s, presidential elections in the United States were greatly impacted by television, yet the impact has not been positive. Television allowed the public to have more access to information and gained reassurance to which candidate they chose to vote for. However, the media failed to recognize the importance of elections. Candidates became image based rather than issue based using a “celebrity system” to concern the public with subjects regarding debates (Hart and Trice). Due to “hyperfamiliarity” television turned numerous people away from being interested in debates between candidates (Hart and Trice). Although television had the ability to reach a greater number of people than it did before the Nixon/Kennedy debate, it shortened the attention span of the public, which made the overall process of elections unfair, due to the emphasis on image rather than issue.
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.
The United States goes to War when: they have been attacked physically (like in the attack of 9/11), have been threatened (like in the Zimmermann telegram), and when America’s ideologies are threatened (like in the Korean War). The reasons that America goes to war are in my opinion are justified. We must fight back when we are attacked in order to ensure to others that we are strong and should not be taken lightly.