Given Cicero’s criteria for a just war described in your text, would preventive wars, such as the war in Iraq, be considered just wars? Why or why not?
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a preventive war does not fall in-line with Cicero 's criteria for a just war. Initially, President Bush and his administration sold the Iraq war as a preventative measure. The assertion was based mostly on assertion Iraq developing, producing, and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMD 's) that could potentially be used by state sponsored terrorist organizations operating freely in Iraq against the United States. If the United States had definitive intelligence that indisputably proved an imminent attack utilizing WMD 's specifically against the United
…show more content…
Thomas Hobbes would consider preventive wars to be just wars. “A commonwealth by acquisition is that where the sovereign power is acquired by force; and it is acquired by force when men singly, or many together by plurality of voices, for fear of death, or bonds, do authorize all the actions of that man, or assembly, that hath their lives or liberty in his power.” Hobbes statement “for fear of death” parallels David Luban’s purpose of a preventive war as a course of action to “forestall a military threat.”
What about Gandhi? Would he consider either preemptive or preventive wars to be
…show more content…
The global war on terror has combined the definitions of both into just a preventive category. The United States has the luxury of being segregated from the majority of conflict areas by two oceans. This reduces the possibilities of a large scale attack by another world power simply based off of the logistical requirement to have a successful invasion onto U.S. soil. However, the introduction of rogue states has caused the U.S. to stay in a perpetual struggle against specific threats being harbored in other regions and states. The U.S. must maintain a constant preventive stance and remain offensively engaged against those targets throughout the world. Continued operations around the globe are both preventive and preemptive in nature causing our view of a just war to continuously evolve and to further facilitate military action where required in a way acceptable to the global
No matter how well intentioned the invasion of Iraq may have been, it was an act of violence and deception that has left many American men dead for no clear reason.
Among some of the subjects that Aquinas tackles in On Law, Morality, and Politics is the dilemma of War and Killing. Aquinas sums up the legality of war through three criteria: that the war waged is done by a legitimate authority, that the war is just because the enemy has done something grossly wrong, and the intention of the war is to solely right the wrong. Also we see Aquinas say that the killing of an innocent person is justified if God will's it.
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
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.
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
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.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
The theory of Just War can be found back over centuries to the philosophy of St. Augustine and beyond. Augustine was one of the first important figures to be challenged by the concerns raised by justified warfare. Christianity, despite significant prosecution, grew out of the Roman Empire, which was Pagan. The evolving Christianity was fundamentally pacifist, giving rise to the refusal of Christians to fight in the Roman army; violence was against Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek, never seek revenge, not to defend themselves and to forgive seventy times seven. Similarly, they could not justify fighting for a pagan empire, and since initially, they were expecting Jesus to return soon, warfare was not considered an important priority. However, when Emperor Constantine became Christian, he made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Up until this point, Christianity remained pacifist. This was the problem that Augustine was faced with; justifying warfare for a Christian empire.
As we regained consciousness one by one, we found ourselves on a deserted island. After gathering all the food and supplies we could find, it was decided that certain rules should be enacted so we may live together civilly. We need to maintain our politeness and courtesy as we do not know how long we may be stranded on the island. To preserve what we have left, the first rule that should be enacted must benefit the group as a whole. The rule to have every able bodied individual work to benefit the group. That means that a person must work at gather food, water, build shelter, and any other tasks that are required. This should be the most important rule as it will maintain order and will provide justice in our group.
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.
Many people, including a number of Christian leaders, have questioned whether the war in Iraq is justified (www.AmericanValues.org). They question if it is morally permissible to have used force to remove a tyrannical and aggressive regime from power instead of just disarming it (www.AmericanValues.org). A difficult moral calculus by liberal hawks led to the decision that the opportunity to free the Iraqi people from decades of oppression was worth the risk (Huang 1). Many people would agree that freeing the Iraqi people was a good thing, but they are free now, yet we are still there!
“The just war tradition is typically evoked when discussing the decision to launch a war (justice of war) and when evaluating the conduct of forces during war (justice in war). But the tradition does not explicitly specify principles for assessing justice after war, nor does it discuss state obligations upon achieving military victory.”
requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just
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.
To prevent tragedies like 9/11 from taking its toll on the United States, terrorism needs to be thought about still to this day. One quote that proves this point is, “ In 2001, the federal commission warned that terrorists could get weapons that can cause mass destruction. Congress needs to work on the integrated governmental structures to better the nation's security” (Augustine). The nation's security can help with the destruction of weapons that are dangerous to the U.S. This can cause more attacks like 9/11 and create a larger threat to the population. Another quote that shows this is, “Preventing further attacks required the U.S. to drop its law-enforcement approach to terrorism and recognize that we were at war” (9/11). To stop attacks like 9/11 from occurring, people need to see that the U.S. isn’t only under attack, but at war as well with the terrorists. Slowly, the country and its citizens are coming realizing this. The counterclaim for this argument is, “The work of public officials allowed us to ask if the country overreacted to 9/11. Providing counter terrorism has increased costs more than what was to be expected” (9/11). The oppone...