...Can WAR ever be just? Can there be rules about war so that fair play is possible? Has there ever been a war with a just cause? This has been a debate for ages. It depends on who you are asking if you ask a Christian they will tell you any war is unjust because god would not want you to kill others. He would want you to turn the cheek. Others may say it is just if it’s in defense. In this paper, I will explain why the Vietnam War was just. The United States got involved in the Vietnam War from 1954 -1964 to prevent and contain communism. In Vietnam, an independence movement under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh rose to challenge French rule. The United States helped France by giving financial and military aid. The US had moral and ethical reasons to stand up and face unethical leaders that oppressed other weaker people and to contain the spread of communism. Communism is horrible because the government controls every move you make and you have no say in what happens in your life. Such as no right to vote, no freedom of speech, no right to a fair trial, etc. This is what the United States was trying to protect South Vietnam from. Communists used terrorism, murdered and subversion to destabilize countries. Just this alone was a just cause for the United States to get involved in the Vietnam War. Many feel that this wasn’t a good enough reason for the United States to get involved and was immoral unjust war, or that communism is not that bad. According to Aquinas four things...
Words: 830 - Pages: 4
...Morality of War Nicholas S. Chavez University of Phoenix Introduction War has been around since the beginning of time; and the causes always differ from the last. Many questions arise in a society because of it, such as death, casualties due to involvement, the overall outcome projected, etc. The most highly debatable topic pertaining to any war that those causes play a factor in is whether it is justified or not. Sacrifices are made overseas as well as on the home front with the families of the men and women giving their lives for their country. In turn, those sacrifices can make those families believe their loss could have been for an unjust cause, making it difficult for war to be supported. On the other hand, there are sacrifices in a war taking place today, and have in the past that families and the ones fighting see as justifiable. To determine the justifiability of war, one must consider all sides and all factors, as well as their effect on the overall society. Sacrifices Made When a loved one is deployed overseas to defend his/her country, all that can get them through, is knowing that their family is waiting for them and hoping and praying that nothing happens to them. The death of a loved one, which many fortunate people, don’t have to experience, is extremely hard on a family and delivers a crushing blow which can cause anyone to break down. When a family member passes away from being sent overseas, it can take a toll on how someone feels about a war and if...
Words: 1761 - Pages: 8
...Mexican-American War Just or Unjust The territory that started a war. “Two times over the next nine years, Texas applied to the United States Congress for annexation.” Was the United States justified by going to war? Where the Mexican-American War could be viewed as just by some, and unjust by others, the war was ultimately just. The U.S. was just, in going to war with Mexico, because Texas wanted to be in the United States territory and their leader did not care. “The treaty signed between Texas and the United States” (Document C). Which means Texas wanted to be part of the U.S. Also, Manifest Destiny “Polk was a strong supporter of Manifest Destiny. He believed it was God’s plan, that America extent its territory all the way to the pacific...
Words: 527 - Pages: 3
...justly a moral criminal for fighting in a war that is either illegal or unjust? This question is at the centre of a new debate that pits a widely held and legally embedded principle of war, that soldiers have equal rights and responsibilities regardless of whether they are on the ‘side of the just’ or not, against a set of unusual new arguments (Rodin and Shue, 2008). Most Americans see the attacks of 9/11 as an unprecedented act of terrorism. Issues related to the response to these attacks have convinced many observers that the current international law regime is an outmoded relic. In particular, they say, the tradition of a just war, which provides the moral basis for most aspects of international law concerning war, stands in need of major revision. The just war is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things: • taking human life is seriously wrong • states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice • protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought. Although it was extensively developed by Christian theologians, it can be used by people of every faith and none (Rodin and Shue, 2008). A utilitarian approach is “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This can be applied to the theory of “just war.” For utilitarian the end justifies...
Words: 1614 - Pages: 7
...With the discussion of unjust and just war has occurred in connection with whether terror-bombing is a just means to pursue a war, or the do it even mean to initiated one in accord with justice. Just war deontological theory is the relationship between duty and the morality rules of the military action, which will result in the good for the welfare of the people in the village that the war is taken place at. Failing to abide by the general rules that have been setup for the U.S. government will result in immorally behavior. When dealing with deontological, there is no room for subjective feelings, because it will leave room for question and it does not deal with ethics, but it does concentrate on prudence. Jus in Bello theory distinguishes how the military will are may treat the combatants and how we will treat noncombatants on the battlefield. The jus ad bellum doctrine is the standard war between the nation’s issues of what...
Words: 720 - Pages: 3
...620,000 people were killed in the Civil War that was supposed to unite the country, only to die for great division and violence amongst races and a disrespect for innocent lives. The Civil War was an unjust war because of the effects it left behind. To start the War, the North was not returning slaves which created unnecessary tension and betrayed the constitution. Furthermore, the war tactics used led to backlash during the Reconstruction period after the war. Firstly, the North was violating the Constitution by not returning renegade slaves. The Fugitive Slave Clause states “No person held to service or labor in one State, escaping into another, shall be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up.” Rather than returning these slaves, the North was, in some cases, helping them to escape. The Confederate states had no obligation to remain part of a country in which many of its states were going against the Constitution. Therefore, the Civil War from the very start was unjust because it was unnecessary from the start. Had the North followed through with returning slaves, slavery would have eventually died out through modernization, and South Carolina and...
Words: 667 - Pages: 3
...will discuss What Hobbes means by saying that when humans live in a state of war everybody against everybody, there is neither justice or injustice. I will also compare Glaucon’s and Hobbes ideas of justice. I will also discuss whether selfishness is in itself a bad thing. Hobbes imagines that humans started off living in a state of nature in which each person is free to decide for himself what he needs, what he's owed, what's respectful, right, moral, sensible, and also free to decide all of these questions for the behavior of everyone else as well. In this situation where there is no common authority to find resolution these many and serious disputes, Hobbes imagined that the state of nature could easily turn into a “state of war”. Hobbes said in describing this state "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Rosenstand 206). Hobbes argues that the state of nature is a wretched state of war in which none of our important human ends are dependably achievable. Human nature also affords resources to escape this wretched condition. Hobbes says that once the conflict reaches a life threatening point people will do anything to preserve their own lives, “where every man is enemy to every man” (Rosenstand 206). Hobbes argues that each of us, as a rational being, can see that a war of all against all is not the best way of achieving our interests. Therefore...
Words: 1799 - Pages: 8
...Just War theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: ‘the right to go to war’ and ‘right conduct in war’ . The first concerns the morality of going to war and the second with moral conduct within war. Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory - jus post bellum - dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. Just War theory postulates that war, while very terrible, is not always the worst option. There may be responsibilities so important, atrocities which can be prevented or outcomes so undesirable they justify war. Origins The Indian epic, the Mahabharata, offers one of the first written discussions of a 'just war'. In it, one of five ruling brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified, and then a long discussion ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality, just means, just cause, and fair treatment of captives and the wounded. The war in Mahabharata is preceded by context that develops the "just cause" for the war including last minute efforts to reconcile differences to avoid war. At the beginning of the war, there is the discussion of "just conduct" appropriate...
Words: 1514 - Pages: 7
...gods are in fact less moral than the humans. Often those who start or refuse to stop an unjust war are considered to be immoral people, or in the case of the Iliad as immoral gods. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on War, “War can be necessary and proportionate only if it serves an end worth all this death and destruction” (Lazar 3.1). Meaning war may be needed if there is a just reason and if the war will prevent even more catastrophe. The gods in the Iliad time and time again act immoral by provoking unjust wars and frequently encouraging wars to continue that are coming to an end, such as when Athena "stirs" the fighting at the wishes of Zeus, Zeus telling Athena to "Urge on the Danaans" (Book 17, 537-543). In the Iliad each god has their own self-serving plan for what they wish to happen and every one of them uses the...
Words: 1072 - Pages: 5
...Amongst those which he, who would be blessed, must love both for their own sake and for their consequences. Glaucon to Socrates: That is not the opinion of most people. They place it in the troublesome class of good things, which must be pursued for the sake of the reward and the high place in public opinion which they bring, but which in themselves are irksome and to be avoided. Glaucon is renewing Thrasymachus’ argument: 1. I shall state what is said to be the nature and origin of justice. 2. I shall assert that all who practice it do so unwillingly, and that they do so not because justice is good but because it is indispensable. 3. That this conduct of theirs is reasonable; for the life of the unjust is far better than that of the just, according to...
Words: 2056 - Pages: 9
...Philosophy Study Guide: Nietzsche (On the Genealogy of Morality, First Treatise; Section 11 of Second Treatise): • True goodness is not just being altruistic • To find out real human goodness, Nietzsche goes back to study history and the study of words-etymology • In the words and roots that designate good, the nobles felt themselves to be humans of a higher rank. Call themselves the truthful.esthlos means the one who is, who possesses reality, who is true. Becomes the catchword of the aristocratic and feel like it distinguishes them from the common “lying” man. • *Origin of morality is power* • Justice is a product of power. It puts order in place/creates laws/preserves power so it continues. There isn’t universal justice. • Life is understood as the desire for power. • Nietzsche believes there have been two types of moralities: o The first morality- aristocratic morality-moral reality The “good” are the few. They possess reality. They have power, strength, victory, self-affirming, freedom, possessors of truth, active. They have a healthier expression of life. More beautiful. They look down upon and despise the “bad” The noble human beings live with himself in confidence and openness The “bad” are the many. They are lower in class, weak, simple, restricted, lacking, degenerate, oppressed, plotting, hating, lying, and passive. They will eventually gain power which leads to Nietzsche’s slave morality. The priests are the leaders of this “bad” slave morality...
Words: 3180 - Pages: 13
...Our nation has gone to war and it’s my turn to go. This war we are engaged in to me is unjust but it’s my civic duty to my country to go and fight. After learning about Socrates I begin to think what would he tell me? Socrates being a man of principles would tell me to go and serve my country on the front lines. He would let me know that this country has given me all that I have earned; all that I have gotten why now would I turn my back to them if I agreed to live in this country all this time. Today I believe even though there is no “draft” there is still a big dilemma when we go to fight in wars that many people may have. It s funny to hear people complain about all the wrong or unjust things we as a country are doing in the wars we are actively involved in today but they do not complain about the society they live in with freedoms, equality and the pursuit to happiness. I would go and put my reservations aside to serve my country if drafted. To me it would be what I owe to the place that allowed me to prosper, educated me and groomed me. After reading the Crito it’s so many things we take for granted that is provided to us. No one is held against their will in most of today’s society to stay in the country they live. They may not have the means to leave but they are not forced. When your country come calling whether it’s to be a productive citizen or to become a solider I believe it’s your duty and what is owed to them to answer. In the case of Socrates I believe it...
Words: 1090 - Pages: 5
...arguing whether or not the war in Afghanistan was a just or unjust war, I am going to give some history about what was happening before 911 or talks of war even began. The Taliban was the government in Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. The Taliban means "Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement". They came into power during the civil war in Afghanistan, and were detested from the world community because of their actions. They held about 90% of the country's territory, their policies, including how they treated women and how they supported terrorists. The Taliban's power was taken away from them in December of 2001 by the U.S. military and Afghani opposition forces in response to 911. The Taliban government harbored Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist group. Afghanistan refused to turn over Bin Laden so the U.S. and UN coalition forces invaded. This is when the Taliban's power was taken away from them and many terrorist camps in Afghanistan were destroyed. Basically negotiating with the Taliban was like negotiating with a terrorist group which is unacceptable by the United States government. So I believe that invading the country with military forces and declaring war was the only successful decision the American government could have made. We are a very powerful country, and we couldn't allow an irrational terrorist group to disrupt our society without protecting ourselves and there being some kind of retaliation. The war in Afghanistan has been discussed...
Words: 315 - Pages: 2
...effort to bring upon a change in governmental policy or legislation. Civil disobedience is not an effort to dissolve the American government, because without government our society would result in chaos. Sometimes, when there is an unjust law and the government won't take the initiative to fix it, the public must act as civil disobedient to bring awareness and fix the unjust law. There have been times when citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government because of an issue that is unjust. There were such cases during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau made such actions to prove their point. Civil disobedience is justified when its goal is to obtain equal rights and service for everyone, without causing physical damage to people and their property, and without breaking the just laws that are already enforced. It should only be practiced when the government fails to uphold justice and fix laws that don't allow everyone the equal rights already given to some. In his essay, "Civil Disobedience" Thoreau wrote in 1849 after spending a night in the Walden town jail for refusing to pay a poll tax that supported the Mexican War. He recommended passive resistance as a form of tension that could lead to reform of unjust laws practiced by the government. He voiced civil disobedience as "An expression of the individual's liberty to create change" (Thoreau ). Thoreau felt that the government had established order that resisted reform and change. "Action...
Words: 1384 - Pages: 6
...not justified in going to war with Mexico. The United States did not have proper justification to respond with violence against the Mexican government. The war with Mexico was also a product of the United States’ belief of manifest destiny. Polk’s over ambition to seize new territory from the Mexicans and disappointment over their refusal to sell him California also possibly played a factor in his willingness to wage war against Mexico. The United States under the leadership of president Polk clearly provoked Mexico into attacking US troops. All these reasons show that the US had no business starting a war with Mexico for territory that was rightfully theirs. The war with Mexico came at a time when much of the country had strong feelings of manifest destiny. Manifest destiny is the belief that fate had preordained the US to expand from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans and from Canada to the Rio Grande river. This idea which was coined by John O’ Sullivan was very popular in the 1840’s. This ideal had strong influence and was one reason that their was so much popular support for the US expansion west. This ideal while nationalistic did not give us the right to go into Mexico and seize land which was rightfully theirs in the first place. They had the right to expel any US citizens that were living on their country’s land especially if they where not abiding by their laws. This alone makes even the annexation of Texas not completely just. The US vision of manifest...
Words: 836 - Pages: 4
