Just War theory plays a major role in the regulation of human warfare. Its guidelines give more structure to war and define what is just and what is unjust. Saint Thomas Aquinas, a theologian and philosopher, was the first to articulate these ideas and make abstract concepts more concrete. Also, Francisco de Vitoria produced a work entitled, ‘De Indis et de ivre belli’, questioning and criticizing the right of the Spanish to conquer the lands of native Americans, which also ties in with just war theory as it considers whether or not the colonization in this case was fair or just. The application of this concept to historical and contemporary situations often leads to a deeper understanding of what and why things happen in battle.
Year 11 Religion – Issues Investigation: Ethical Views and Frameworks Focus: Is There Such Thing as A Just War? Introduction Is there such thing as a basic war? Just war theory deals with the resistance of how and why wars are combat. The legitimization can be either speculative or unquestionable. The theoretical point of view is stressed over ethically supporting the war and the structures that battling may conceivably take.
The U.S. struggled with each issue and did what they thought was right, even if damage was caused. I believe we should have involved ourselves with the war, and that it was right. Jews were being exterminated just because of their religious views. Hitler was going "berserk" during that time period and we should have taken action earlier. Italy had a roaring fascist society which could hurt democracy in the world.
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. With this option the United States will have moral leadership and will be able to build a war of peace and democracy without stooping to the level of the enemy. If the United States does chose this option they are risking that the japes might take it as a sign of weakness and might encourage them to keep fighting. Another risk with this option is that if not all aggressive militarism is destroyed then we know that new dictators and wars will come up again. Option two is that the United States should drop an atomic bomb on a deserted island so that the whole world can see what power we have.
Stalin’s view is supported by Admiral D Leahy, who in his memoirs writes ‘we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages’ This quote holds a substantial amount of weight to my argument due to Admiral D Leahy’s position as Roosevelt and Truman’s chief of staff, it would be expected for a man of such status to hold a view in support of America’s actions. Nevertheless, it is apparent that while Leahy may have condoned the dropping of the bomb to shorten the war, he would make no attempt to justify his country’s and his President’s actions. The moral implications were made apparent on the British mission to Hiroshima. Not only did the bombs claim the lives of over 200,000 civilians, the
If the sole reason for war was to capture Sadaam and his officials, this would then be unjust. At the time of the war, the war met another requirement of the doctrine; it had legitimate authority, George W. Bush. As long as a legit source declares the war, approval from the UN is unnecessary. Therefore there was an official declaration of war, showing
This leads to the question, “Was The Reign of Terror Justified?” Justified meaning that the methods the government established were satisfactory to accomplish the goals set forth by the revolution. The Reign of Terror is not justified because the radical change of government brought about war, the internal threat was handed too violently, and the government's methods were too ruthless. The Reign of Terror was not justified because the government's methods were too ruthless. In Steven Otfinoski's Triumph and Terror: The French Revolution he spoke of the establishment of the Committee of Public safety by the National Convention which made sure no enemies of the revolution were a threat to public safety and by this having to send a system of spies and informers to stop the threats, it made everyone counterrevolutionary or not unsafe from being suspected as an enemy. (Doc.
The decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had many influential factors effecting the decision. There certainly was the possibility of success for an invasion, but the decision not to invade far outweighed the decision to invade. Conventional bombing and Blockade were considered in the effort to force Japan into surrender. But, the fact that the Japanese military were controlling the Government and were in a state of mind of absolute refusal to surrender, meant that this was not a reasonable option. Political factors were greatly influential of Truman’s final decision to drop the bomb and the threat of Russian military who were soon to advance in the region had its impact.
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.
History indicates that moral concerns influenced warrior’s decisions to limit the potential damage of war. In addition, certain acts during warfare were considered honorable, while others were seen as dishonorable (e.g. the killing of innocent man, woman and child). However, what is viewed as honorable or dishonorable is specific to religion and culture (Moseley, 2009). This can be the case when referring to terrorist groups.