is war ever justified essay

Terrorism, as defined by Webster’s, is the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.  Terrorists use violent tactics in an effort to create political change, threaten or induce fear in the public and/or government, raise media attention or further their political cause.  Unfortunately, many times, terrorist attacks fall upon innocent victims. One may argue as to the degree of innocence each individual may have.  Terrorist attacks in current history most always end in the killing of children.  There can be no argument as to a baby’s innocence. Terrorism when inflicted on innocent civilians can never be justified.  Killing others for any reason other than self-defense is morally reprehensible.  Kant believes in a universal law.  Morally, we must “treat humanity never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.”    In other words, terrorists cannot morally justify innocent deaths to achieve some ultimate goal.    R.G. Frey and Christopher Morris have similar beliefs that, “terrorists cannot avail themselves of such theories to justify furthering the ends of some small group at the cost of greater damage to the interests of others.”  Even if we disagree with Kant, Frey and Morris, and assume that the terrorist’s goals were justifiable, terrorist attacks in no way guarantee a set end result.  Although a terrorist would achieve his goal of threatening and inducing fear in the public by performing a terrorist act, there is no guarantee that such an act will either create the political change the terrorist is trying to achieve, or attain the desired response by the government or the public.   The media attention that is derived from the act may or may not be conducive to the terrorists’ objectives. One may argue that the terrorists are justified in their actions.  Those.
Enter Your Search Terms to Get Started! Is war ever Justified Life has many amazing things to offer. Life presents us to things such as feelings, people, events, and at last death. Being alive means having the opportunity to learn, to love, to hurt, to feel unhappiness and joy. Life teaches us many good things throughout the years, however as great as life can be, it can also be very painful, destroying and even unfair. Just as we have love, we also have hatred. We have people in the world who are jealous for one reason or another. People who are jealous of other people or/and their countries. In this case I’m talking about the United States. Because the United States has a good army, good governments and economy, other countries envy it. They start hating for not much reason and sooner or later they try starting a war. War is a horrible fight that is fought among countries; it kills thousands, and thousands, even millions of people. War is a frightening event that occurs through out life. People go into war for countless reasons; however power is a main factor of war. Wanting to have more power and not wanting to share it becomes a terrible problem. Some people are greedy and selfish and just simply want more and more of it. Whatever the reason might be, I think war is something we should try to avoid if possible. If it’s not necessary to kill millions of innocent people, then why do it? There can always be a way of compromising. Personally, I think that war is not justified. I agree, that sometimes you are forced to do things you might not want to do, however, I don’t think that it makes war acceptable. I don’t think that killing millions of innocent children, and people is necessary. Some people think war is justified because, they think that that is the only solution , I think they’re wrong because rather than war being the only solution my opinion is that war is.
Pre-emptive war is universally recognized as an anticipatory use of force. Walzer acknowledges that pre-emptive force is when both individuals and states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; they can fire the first shots if they know themselves about to be attacked. (2006: 74). “ there must be shown a necessity of self-defence instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkely 1968).  This would permit the state to do little more other than to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it had felt its impact. Pre-emption then, is like a reflex action “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute”. (Walzer, 2006: 75). Despite the definition for the terms of a pre-emptive war, whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradicting subject for states. There is the issue of morality, abiding by international law and comprehending the definition of “imminent threat”. The main problems here are that states can misjudge “threat”. What really constitutes an imminent threat? It is this confusion and blurred definition which leads to states acting out of aggression and uncertainty rather than a solid justified move which can constitute a pre-emptive war. This links in with just and unjust wars which are explained by Walzer. Pre-emptive force can be headlined under legitimate and illegitimate force. Using liberal and realist theorists together with cases whereby states have used “pre-emptive” force to legitimize their actions, one can come to the judgement of whether pre-emptive war can ever be justified. In my opinion, pre-emptive force can certainly be justified supporting internal states duty of “responsibility to protect”. However, because states have abused this use of force against another due to an unclear overview in International Law and the.
By Richard N. Haasspresident, Council on Foreign Relations Should the United States attack Iran if we learn it has begun to enrich uranium to the level required for a nuclear bomb? What about attacking North Korea if it appears too close to producing a nuclear warhead small enough to place inside a missile? Or sending troops into Pakistan if the government loses what little control it has over its western regions and terrorists take hold? No decision is more fateful than the decision of a government to employ military force. Except in the most clear-cut cases, such decisions are also difficult. As a result, just war theory has for centuries provided useful guidance to policymakers, clergy, citizens, and soldiers alike. But just war theory is too subjective and confining for today’s real-world threats. A more useful concept is that of justifiable war. Just war theory today is a composite that has evolved from ideas developed by various religious figures. In the 5th century, St. Augustine discussed in City of God the circumstances under which killing could be justified and empires legitimately expanded. In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas laid out a more elaborate just war doctrine in his Summa Theologica. He wrote that three conditions were necessary to make a war just: it must be ordered by a competent authority; the cause must be just; and the combatants must have “a right intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.” Modern just war guidance involves both the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum) and how to fight one (jus in bello). This latter set of criteria focuses on proportionality (how much force is used), targeting (avoiding non-combatants), and means (avoiding certain classes of weapons). Most of the debate, however, reflects the more basic decision of when to go to war. Building on the writings of both Augustine and.
The words of Jesus are unambiguous: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” [Matt. 5:9] These familiar words from the Sermon on the Mount form the basis of any Christian understanding of war and its morality. For the Christian, the standard is already set and the goal is absolutely clear–we are to seek the peace. The hard part comes in understanding how peace–even the partial and temporary cessation of war we call peace–can be achieved and established. Is war sometimes necessary for the making of peace? Christians have struggled with this throughout the long span of Christian history. Some Christians have been willing to die but unwilling to kill–whatever the cause. Other Christians mounted crusades to reclaim territory and establish a Christian order by military force. The majority of Christians have struggled with the question in an attempt to be faithful in wars understood to be necessary as well as tragic. The most thoughtful Christian tradition of moral reasoning on the question of lethal violence is customarily described as the Just War tradition. This pattern of careful thinking goes back to the earliest centuries of the church, when the armies of Rome defended the empire against aggression. When can a state lawfully go to war? What are the conditions necessary for risking and taking life? How is a war to be fought with ethical concern? Based on biblical reasoning, the Just War tradition insists that war must be the last resort, after all reasonable alternatives have failed. A lawful authority must authorize the military action, and that authority must be driven by an intention to establish a righteous peace–not to gain territory or claim the goods of another lawful nation. Furthermore, any military action must be proportionate to the good that can be gained. No military action is justified that is not absolutely required. There.
Welcome Anti Essays offers essay examples to help students with their essay writing. Sign Up Below is an essay on Can War Ever Be Justified from Anti Essays, your source for research papers, essays, and term paper examples. Citations MLA Citation Can War Ever Be Justified. Anti Essays. 3 Mar. 2016 < APA Citation Can War Ever Be Justified. Anti Essays. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from the World Wide Web.