War has been going on for centuries. Philosophers pondered whether war is ever justified. Different views and theories have developed throughout the centuries and attempted to solve this dilemma.
The first theory to be considered is the Just War Theory, also known as the Just War Tradition. Components of such a tradition are the use of prima facie obligations. The obligation not to injure others is an example of a prima facie obligation. When two prima facie obligations are in conflict, then one has to consider the whole context. If an obligation is absolute, then it can never be overridden.
Having analysed the prima facie obligations, one must keep in mind that there are several other conditions that must be fulfilled before a war is said to be just (Jus ad Bellum).
First and foremost, the war has to be commenced for a just cause. A war can only be justified if it has been attacked, that is by an aggressor, or if it will enter war in the aid of another nation which has been attacked. A nation cannot enter war if it aids the aggressor.
The Just War Tradition believes that war is commenced only if the nation has attempted all other resorts and failed. If other strategies and alternatives where not attempted before entering war, then such a war is not justified. Therefore, having tried all possible means and still leaving the nation up to no choice but to engage in war as a last resort then, war is then justified.
The Essay on Prima facie Duties and Ross’s Theory of Right Conduct
“There are other beings in this world whose condition we can make better in respect of virtue, or of intelligence or of pleasure” (Ross). W. D. Ross was a philosopher who developed the Theory of Right Conduct. The seven prima facie duties are central in Ross’s Theory of Right Conduct. The purpose of these duties is to determine what people ought to do in questionable moral situations. “A prima ...
The intention of war cannot be simply to fight. There is also, in the Just War Theory, the right intention, that is fighting only to repel the other nation from its country. Killing should never be the purpose of war, in fact killing of innocents or inflicting suffering cannot justifiably be done if it is avoidable. Since the Just War Theory makes a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, it excludes direct unnecessarily cruelty on innocents. It claims that killing civilians purposely or as a part of policy is different then civilians being killed due to side-effects of war.
War must be declared by someone invested with legal authority or legitimate authority. Another criterion justifies war if and only if there is a reasonable hope of benefit. That is, if the nation is not certain of its success then, such a war cannot be considered as a justifiable war.
The last important criterion when it comes to Jus ad Bellum is the principle of proportionality. This principle of proportionality states that the aim must be to achieve a good that is proportional to the injuries. The production of any war has to be more good than harm.
If the entire above criterion are obliged and fulfilled, then war is just. However, once a war is commenced there are still conditions to justify force. (Jus in Bello) During war non-combatants must be immune from harm and specific tactics must adhere to the principle of proportionality.
An opposing school of thought is that known as Pacifism. Whilst the Just War claims that war is needed to bring about peace, pacifists disagree with such an ideology and states that ‘’There is no way to peace, peace is the way.” This is said by A.J. Muste an American Pacifist who believes that force can never be justified. Peace is the ideal way in every circumstance. The idea of applying peace does not however mean ‘’passivism”. Therefore, it does not mean that one must be passive. While pacifists reject violent actions, they embrace peaceful actions. The effectiveness of such a method is Gandhi and Martin Luther King. A non-violent ethnic is seen as the only hope of fracturing violence. The only violence that can be applied is for self-defence.
The Essay on War Nations Peace Germany
1. About the Russian Civil War? Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided were enemies of the Soviet State. He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. ...
Political Realism on the other hand opposes both previous theories. A Political Realist is only concerned about power and the nation’s interest. They mainly always act in favour of their state or country. War is only justified when it serves the nation’s interest. Engaging in war which is not for the nation’s interest is not justifiable.
Preventive war is another theory where states may use military force in the face of threats of war or else to prevent a nation from growing powerful enough to pose a threat in the future. A formal declaration of such a war is not needed, as this technique’s main aim is to catch the other country off guard by attacking first and destroy things that may be used against them. Examples of preventive war in reality are Hitler’s attack against Russia, and Japan’s attack in the Pearl Harbour. This school of thought accepts this technique as being fully justified.
