We are more likely to consult other world powers to justify our reasons for going to war. A just war today, for civilized countries, have to have approval from the United Nations. An argument about the guidelines that St. Thomas Aquinas had suggested is now it is considered too subjective. "What constitutes a just cause is in the eyes of the beholder, as are the probability of success and any estimate of likely costs and benefits." (Haass, 2009) If war is the only answer to save lives, yes it is justifiable not matter the time or the place.
Explain the ethical principles of Christianity in relation to war (25) Christianity has many different conflicting relations to war in the religion, from the war like god in the Old Testament, to the teaching of peace and prosperity from Jesus in the New Testament. Christians, during world war two, were absolute pacifists. This meant that they were against all forms of violence and anything to do with violence, including war. Their objection to the use of violence was based on the teachings of Jesus in the new testament of the bible. This is called Christian pacifism.
The intention was to motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts, prevent war and to limit its effects. The conditions of a Just War are: * it must be fought by a legal recognised authority, eg, a government * the cause of the war must be just * the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil * there must be a reasonable chance of success * the war must be the last resort (after all diplomatic negotiations have been tried and failed) * only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved Some wars can appear to meet all of these conditions. For example, World War Two (1939-1945) would appear to have been a Just War: * it was fought by Germany and the Allied countries who were legal authorities * Germany was being attacked for invading other countries * the intention was to correct the evil Hitler was doing for Nazi Germany * the Allies felt that they had a reasonable chance of success and they did win * all forms of negotiation with Hitler and the Third Reich had failed * most of the fighting was limited to the armies concerned and to harbours and munitions sites This looks as though it was a ‘properly constituted’ Just War, but actions like the Allied bombing of Dresden, a two-day raid by almost 2,400 bombers that destroyed the city and killed perhaps 135,000 civilians to virtually no military purpose, certainly broke the final condition. World War 2
“Ending the War Against Japan: Science, Morality and the Atomic Bomb” Summary The author of this essay gives three different options to end World War II. Option one states that the United States should make peace with japan. The United States knows that japan is very close to surrendering but has not surrendered because they are afraid that we will put their emperor on trail as a war criminal. The Japanese feel that the emperor is a descendent from the gods and they will do everything to protect him. If the United States is clear that they do not want to make him a criminal but instead a national symbol then maybe the Japanese might agree and surrender.
Here, it is crucial to understand that the bargaining range is determined by the expected outcome of the war minus the cost for each state. Bargaining failure results as the failure to find a common ground, that both states would prefer, rather than going to war. As highlighted by Fearon (Art & Jervis, 2012) , the first causal mechanism that serves to explain why bargaining can still yield war is
Preemptive war and pre punishment are similar in that they both act first before an attack is made or a crime is committed. Based on my understanding of the readings thus far, I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference between pre punishment and pre emptive war. The main difference between the two is that preemptive war is in response to imminent aggression from another state while pre punishment is the act of punishing a person(s) for a crime they have been perceived of committing and have yet to commit. Michael Walzer describes preemptive war as an always justified war occurring to stop an imminent attack as opposed to sitting back and waiting to be attacked. Walzer gives an example by describing the Six Day War
Gwen Lawless English Composition 30 June 2011 The true price of the death penalty In choosing to support or disapprove of the death penalty, should the price we consider be one of moral cost or financial cost? In her essay “Executions are too costly- Morally,” Helen Prejean argues that the price paid for the death penalty is a moral one and even Christians who should be like Christ- ability to speak with power and authority without destroying a person’s soul or spirit- have instead taken on the role of the wicked now believing in violence and the death penalty. She argues that often the scripture is used to back up their beliefs and their support of the death penalty, without consideration to the culture and era or period of the Hebrew bible or the true context of the scripture being clear. She blames the change in Christians on the greed of Christian bishops in the early church, who desired wealth and power and as a result became much like the wicked in desiring to punish people by killing them; but points out that Martin Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi were perfect examples of nonviolence. They had the ability to, “make the price of maintaining control too high for their opponents”, by not seeking civil disobedience in order to allow the world to see the racism, but instead choosing to not seek to control another, but to control themselves and their own actions (Prejean, 623-627).
‘Warfare has been infused with some moral concerns from the beginning rather than war being a mere Macbethian bloodbath” (Moseley, 2009). The Just war theory is a set of mutually agreed rules of conflict, generally involving two culturally related enemies that share similar values and beliefs. However, when these enemies differ due to cultural and religious beliefs the enemy can be viewed as ‘less than human’ and the ‘moral rules’ of the just war theory become overlooked (Moseley, 2009). These mutually agreed rules are old as warfare itself. History indicates that moral concerns influenced warrior’s decisions to limit the potential damage of war.
By saying that “the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven”, Jesus did not mean that His crucifixion and resurrection paid only for a subset of Sins and certain sins are excluded from the Grace of Calvary. The concept of ‘unforgivable sin’ has troubled quite a lot of people since they are concerned that, because they have rejected or blamed or grieved the Holy Spirit once, they have sinned too much to be forgiven of that sin. In fact, Unpardonable Sin does NOT mean that God is unable to pardon a sin, but it signifies that one who refuses to accept the forgiveness cannot be forgiven. To understand how blasphemy of Spirit becomes unpardonable, we need to understand what “blasphemy against the Spirit” actually is. Defiance of Holy Spirit Vs Defiance of Son of Man It is to be noted that Jesus warned about the unforgivable sin to Pharisees who accused Jesus to be demon possessed.
Different people have different views to war, Some Christians who take a pacifist view may believe that all violence is wrong and therefore so is war, while other Christians may only fight in wars if they are considered just. The Bible has different messages towards peace, for example, ‘A tooth for a tooth’ and in comparison, the Sermon on the Mount ‘Turn the other cheek’, and this passage shows how Christians should react to injustice and other everyday trials of life. But it says nothing directly about war, although this passage could be interpreted to, Christians should never fight in wars because Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but in reality, for example, if an enemy army attacked your country, you wouldn’t and couldn’t stand by and watch your citizens being relentlessly murdered. There is another passage in the Bible which discusses some of the purposes of governments –because, it is the government which normally decides to go to war, in legitimate circumstances- “… For it [government] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."