“The conditions of Just War Theory are both practical and reasonable. They provide the basis to justify any conflict” – Clarify and evaluate this claim.
Just War Theory states a collection of criteria that come before choosing to go to war. They are intended to ensure that the decision to wage war is the right one. However, while what they state seems to be reasonable, it appears impractical to expect a war to follow the rules, as war is generally disordered. I also think that it is untrue to say that the Just War Theory justifies conflict as I do not believe that conflict or war can ever be justified completely.
Just War Theory attempts to protect the innocent, so that the only people involved in the war are those who chose to be involved. While on the surface this seems a sensible idea, how can we protect the innocent in an event as haphazard as a war? It would be virtually impossible to ensure that no civilian is harmed or killed during a war because soldiers and fighting naturally expands into civilian areas. It also would be difficult to determine which civilians are innocent and which are not – for example, would a munitions worker who agreed and supported the war be a legitimate target? We can see that it is controversial to make a decision on who is innocent and who is not.
The theory states that the reason for going to war must be just or fair. According to Aquinas, the war must occur only if it is to confront a ‘real and certain danger’, including protecting innocent life or preserving basic human rights. However, to me it seems hypocritical to justify going to war because it is protecting innocent life, when clearly war itself is going to destroy innocent lives. It seems hypocritical also to say war can be justified if it is protecting human rights, because what about the rights of civilians who are caught in crossfire or bomb attacks? To me, justifying war by saying it is for a good cause is incomprehensible because trying to achieve peace or harmony by introducing conflict and war is clearly not going to work.
The Essay on Justification Of War Kill Justified Forced
Killing in War is Justified Is killing during war justified or not In most societies killing is considered wrong, however different characteristics such as defending, obeying orders, the storyline, reasons of an act and survival justifies the killing during war. This essay will argue upon the justification of the numerous murders at the time of warfare. Why should men be blamed upon fighting for ...
The theory also states that a war can only be fought with ‘good’ intentions, or according to Aquinas ‘the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil’. While this rule has sensible grounding, to guarantee there are no suspicious motives hiding beneath the appearance of a just cause. However, it seems an impossible rule to follow as intentions are subjective and can never be proven and we can never be truly sure of other person’s true intentions. So while it has a good idea behind it, it’s an impractical rule to try and follow.
Whilst the Just War Theory has other aspects which I have not explored, my point behind looking at a few certain criteria of it is so show how the theory is impractical to actually use and therefore limits itself as a reasonable set of criteria to follow. I also find it difficult to agree with a theory that claims war is sometimes right, when I believe war can never be right in any given circumstances. I don’t believe any amount of rules or laws can justify people killing each other to try and resolve differences.
