...involvement in war on some occasions. The Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be theoretical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with justifying war ethically. The role of ethics is used to examine whether war is justified and if so can the aspects be changed. The just war tradition also considers the thoughts of various philosophers through the ages and examine their philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits and whether their thoughts have contributed to the justification of war. The just war theory was firstly developed by Saint Augustine of Hippo. Looking back at the Bible he realised that although older generations sided with the more peaceful aspects of the Bible (New Testament) the aspects which included violence (Old Testament) could not be ignored. In Mathew 5 it Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers” however he did not oppose those who crucified him. This links to how war can be justified because Jesus Gods only son did not punish those who purposely killed him without reason. So to punish those with to an extent have a valid reason could be seen as hypocritical. Augustine believed that justified wars were commanded by God in the bible and split his theory into two parts they are; jus ad bellum-just reasons for going to war, and jus in bello-just practice in war. This was then further developed by Aquinas. Jus ad bellum contains seven key points. If these points are met then war can be justified. The points...
Words: 1501 - Pages: 7
...Is Torture Justified? EN4120 23 August 2013 ITT Technical Institute Abstract Torture should be allowed if it saves lives. Why should any lives be lost if there is a way to save them. Terrorists are not even protected by the Geneva Conventions so why should they have the same rights and privileges as Prisoners of War. Is Torture Justified? So the question is, Is Torture Justified? My claim is that as long as torture saves lives then torture should be allowed by all means. Torture has always been a part of civilization. It goes back as far as the Greeks and Romans and as recently as when detainees were being held in Guantánamo Bay Cuba in 2004. In 1949 the Geneva Conventions was sanctioned during the wake of World War II. Even though the Geneva Conventions of 1949 was established torture has been and is still used inappropriately. Cornell University Law School found, “The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting.” The Geneva Conventions explains how terrorists are defined under the Geneva Conventions as not being held up to the same standards as Prisoner Of War are. So if terrorists are not to be considered protected by the Geneva Conventions then in that case torture should be justified for a least terrorists. Just think how many lives could have been saved if United States had the means or the opportunity to have tortured someone...
Words: 765 - Pages: 4
...Have you ever wondered how we got territory from Mexico? The United was justified in going to war with Mexico because US was giving resources Mexico,mexico passed the border and killed a lot of americans, and mexico's government can’t command their people. The US government gave food,supply,ect. to places that needed the things. Source A says “The anglo saxon foot is already on california's borders marking its trail with schools and colleges,courts and representative halls,mills and meeting houses” (Polk). The US government are giving resources to schools,colleges,courts,etc. The us is justified because the us wants to help people so they give them resources. The US invaded mexico. Source B says, “Mexico passed the boundary of the US and killed...
Words: 253 - Pages: 2
...Rodjanét Williams History 101 Professor Saul Panski April 22, 2013 To Justify War or Not to Justify War? That is the Question On May 11, 1846, James K. Polk delivered his address to Congress requesting a Declaration of War on the Republic of Mexico. President Polk justified his war by saying in his message that Mexico had attacked American troops and invaded the United States. He also brought up the issue that initially brought about all of the tensions between the U.S. and Mexico, which was the Mexican government had not been cooperative in negotiations over the Texas boundary. Polk, as well as most of the rest of Americans at this time, saw the declaration of war as a legitimate and natural expression of America’s Manifest Destiny, which will be later explained. The question remains, however, was Polk’s declaration of war on Mexico really necessary, let alone justified? Was peace what he really wanted, or was his true intention just to acquire more land and expand the U.S. westward as fast as he could? President Polk did appear to have taken several steps to try to avoid an armed conflict with Mexico. First, Polk tried to reopen diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Mexico by sending an envoy, Mr. John Slidell of Louisiana, invested with full powers to make adjustments to the current state of affairs between the two countries. He sent this envoy, seemingly, as evidence that he did not want war, but peace and harmonious engagements between the U.S. and Mexico from there...
Words: 2162 - Pages: 9
...Assess the view that Stalin was justified in distrusting his wartime allies during 1941-45 During the Second World War, three leaders: Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill came together – they were known as the Grand Alliance – to face the enemy that they all had in common. Although through issues, such as differing ideologies and previous tension a mistrust between Stalin and his allies emerged. The passages suggest that Stalin was both justified and justified to be suspicious of his allies. No definitive conclusion can be draw as to Stalin was justified in his distrust as the evidence does not solely point in one direction. Therefore it would be wrong to assume that this view is either justified or not due to a lot of contradicting evidence. In Passage A, Wolfson stresses the importance of taking a long time to prepare even a moderately sized invasion force to take on the German counterparts. He described it as the ‘most elaborate invasion plan ever’ and gave examples of special equipment, such as artificial harbour and the PLUTO system, that would first have to be organised even before an initial invasion began to take shape. An exceedingly large number of air crafts and ships would have to prepared and assembled before the invasion could take place. Wolfson stresses how it was the best equipped and largest military force than had been seen and therefore the preparations would take a long time. On the other hand Passage C offers an alternative view to the situation at the time...
Words: 451 - Pages: 2
...Justifiable Terrorism in Total Wars Molly Thomson 201311503 Political Science 1000-03 March 18th, 2014 The word ‘terrorism’ instantly makes people shudder; the negative connotations and controversies surrounding terrorism in modern society are enough to spark a discussion of whether it is justifiable or not. In order to determine whether or not terrorism can be justified, a clear definition must be decided upon. Decades before the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, the definition of the word terrorism was hard to define. Political figures around the globe argued and disagreed on what they thought should have determined the act of terrorism. Now, there are multiple different definitions originating from distinct cultures and societies, suggesting that terrorism is in the eye of the victim. One definition of terrorism is “any violent or criminal act planned for a political or ideological purpose”; while another claims that terrorism is understood to be a direct attack on innocents. Since both of these definitions have important components to them, it can be assumed that both traits are essential to defining terrorism. For the purpose of this paper, the definition of terrorism will be understood as ‘a violent attack on innocents for the purpose of political change’. It can be hard for most people to understand the act of injuring and/or killing hundreds, or maybe even tens of thousands of people, as justifiable. However, if the innocents are...
Words: 1878 - Pages: 8
...good. In World War 2 the United States dropped the Atomic bomb on Japan in order to make them surrender and end the war. The dropping of the atomic bomb was justified in World War 2 because of Japan’s refusal to surrender, it saved U.S. lives and it demonstrated U.S. power. World War 2 was a dark time for all countries involved and especially the United States. Following the war in Europe ending with the death of Adolf Hitler, the war in the Pacific raged on. The United States were fighting with Japan to avenge the bombing of Pearl Harbor which started World War 2. Pearl Harbor was a surprise bombing of a United States naval base by Japan. It killed thousands of people and destroyed large amounts of naval equipment. As the United States fought Germany in Europe, the conflict with Japan was on the backburner. Now with the war in Europe over, Japan is the main enemy. Japan’s military strategy was known to be very unorthodox. With suicide pilots attacking U.S. ships and their relentless mindset made it a daunting task for the U.S. to overcome. In the mainland the U.S. was holding Japanese Americans in internment camps to isolate them from the rest of society in fear they may be giving information to the Japanese. The United States did not see an invasion of Japan as a viable option so they considered the option of using nuclear weaponry. The first reason for the justification of the atomic bomb was because of Japan’s refusal to surrender. Throughout the war and history, Japan...
Words: 2409 - Pages: 10
...The Iraq war wasn’t justified The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 20 – May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, alongside the United Kingdom, and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations. This phase (March–April 2003) consisted of a conventionally fought war which concluded with the fall of Baghdad that marked the beginning of the second phase, the current Iraq War, and was a continuation of the Gulf War of 1991, prior to which Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, and after defeat by Coalition Forces had agreed to surrender and/or destroy several types of weapons, including SCUD missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). According to then President of the United States George W. Bush and then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people. According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace. Although some remnants of pre-1991 production were found after the end of the war. US government spokespeople confirmed that these were...
Words: 1431 - Pages: 6
...During World War II, The United States and Japan were in constant battle with each other due to the Attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. The United States during the time was developing a nuclear weapon, and since the U.S just wanted to stop the war, the U.S bombed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in hopes of Japanese surrender. The U.S had finally succeeded in winning the war and in accomplishing Japanese surrender. Following the use of atomic bombs, many argue whether the use of atomic bombs was justified. Although the atomic bombings during World War II caused geographical devastation and suffering, the use of atomic bombs brought a quick and easy end to World War II and helped in future developments of nuclear weapons. The atomic bombings on Japan during World War I caused great geographical devastation and suffering. Many people after the bombings found their homes collapsed, schools broken, and families torn...
Words: 766 - Pages: 4
...Question such as “Is torture ever justified in effort to prevent massive harm or the lost of lives?” For me, I do think that torture is justified. I clearly know that torturing is not good and it violate human rights and human dignity. However, I still think torture give a lot of benefit to leaders during their time in need. The reason why I think torture is justified is because torturing people do sometimes bring out good result during the interrogation. Not only do I believe in torture is needed in some situation, but the study also proof that torture bring out positive outcome such as prevent death and suffering on massive scare. Base on the I’ve heard from some people, especially those who’ve been in war that Even when their soldier caught...
Words: 405 - Pages: 2
...innocent people. In my definition I define terrorism as actions or threats of actions against innocent people. To me this is a very important idea. I feel that terrorism works because it induces fear in the general public and people become afraid because they are faced with the fact that even though they have done nothing wrong they could be attacked. I feel that violence is never legitimate when used on innocent people and thus a terrorist is never legitimate because they are attacking innocent people and that can never be seen as a justified act. The idea that the victim of terrorism has to be innocent has many implications. I think the biggest implication is that, through my definition, some forms of terrorism can be justified. This is a tricky issue though and it reminds me of the discussion we had in class on whether violence could ever be justified. Many students believed that violence against a tyrant or unjust leader could be justified when the leader had engaged in acts against humanity. As...
Words: 890 - Pages: 4
...land, would you agree to move away from home? For most of the Cherokee during the earlier 1800’s, the answer to this question was a firm no. During that time period, the United States government had been attempting to move Native American tribes west into their newly purchased Louisiana Territory. Previously, the Cherokee had sided against them in many wars, and had expressed violent attacks against them. The government wanted to move them off of their Georgia land. This caused the Indian Removal Act to be created. The president, Andrew Jackson at the time, suddenly had the power to negotiate treaties with Native Americans that would move them into Indian Territory. While many...
Words: 1448 - Pages: 6
...Imagine a world in which you lost all of your rights,and each law passed was required to follow. This unimaginable fantasy became the American Colonist’s reality. The Revolution was the start of American Independence. It was caused by several events between England and the colonists. These consisted of many disturbances such as the release of the Declaration of Independence and a few boycotts toward certain acts, such as the Sugar ,Stamp, and Townshend Acts. Seven battles occurred in relation to the Revolution spanning from (1775-1781). The colonists finally realized they deserved independence. This caused the Revolution to officially start in 1776 and continue until 1783. Were the American Colonists reasonably able to declare war upon England?...
Words: 878 - Pages: 4
...Truman’s Decision - Was the bombing of Hiroshima justified or not? It was on the afternoon of 6th August 1945 that an event was believed to change and save the world forever. Harry Truman had made a life changing decision to drop an atomic bomb named “Little Boy” in Japan’s Hiroshima. The result of this weapon ended up in destroying more than 4 square miles of the city. The company who made the bomb was called Enola Gay. The motive behind the doing of this was to threaten Japan and make them surrender in World War 2. It is a fact that this was the first time in history that a nuclear weapon was used. This event is still one of the most important topics in history. It has been debated by an abundance of historians: Was it justified despite 129,000 innocent citizens died? There isn’t a definite answer to this but there were both sides to the story. Bombing was justified It is widely believed that the bombing was brutal and cruel. However, it was the reason that ended World War 2, and if America did not drop the bomb, the losses of soldiers would be even at a larger number than the amount of people who died in the drop of the bomb. It has also been said to save a lot of American’s lives and soldiers. This statement is backed up by the quotation “Fighting would be fierce and the losses heavy.” that was said by Harry S. Truman in 1955. This quote can tell us that during that time he believed that if the war was still going on, it was very likely that the upcoming invasions...
Words: 1750 - Pages: 7
...Strayer University | Critical Thinking Paper: Revised (Human Rights and War on Terror) | Lori Schumacher | Professor Dena HurstPHI 210 | Strayer University | 6/21/2013 | | How is torture defined? Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 says “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel; inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Does imposing torture amongst terrorist detainees help the United States in fighting the war on terror? Al Qaeda started its war against America by carrying out the simultaneous bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 2008, the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 and what pulled the United States into the global war on terrorism, September 11, 2001. What I will be discussing will be the political atmosphere after September 11th and the roles of our government officials and intelligence agencies. America is supposed to be a country of human rights and not to inflict cruel and unusual punishment on criminals sentenced in our own penal system. Where have we as a nation fallen? I do not believe that torturing or using “enhanced interrogation techniques” will give us the upper hand in the global war on terror. Who ultimately authorized the United States to enter into torturing another human being? The United States became aware of abuses and torturing of detainees from the Abu Ghraib scandal in Afghanistan in April 2004. Detainees underwent serious mistreatment, torture...
Words: 1440 - Pages: 6
