• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How far is killing in warfare more justifiable than other kinds of killing?

Extracts from this document...


How far is killing in warfare more justifiable than other kinds of killing? The justification of war has been an ideal that has caused much debate and controversy for humanity throughout all time. The early church took the teaching of Jesus literally, and opposed violence and killing for any purpose, but as the church gradually became more involved in the affairs of state, its teachings began to change. When in 324 CE, the emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, the church turned from pacifism and accepted the use of armed force by the state as justifiable. In the time the Doctrine of the just war was developed, and most of the church has accepted this view but the early pacifism of the church later resurfaced in heretical movement like the Cathars and the Anabaptists. The Christian conception of a well-ordered, peaceful society, the City of God, was maintained and influenced by the ideal of just war. ...read more.


He proceeded to establish which wars were "just" and thus allowed morally. This just war tradition concerned itself with the moral issues of waging war. The basic premise for all just war is the concept of love for neighbour. The unselfish motivations fuelled the inhabitants of the City of God to protect their neighbours from evil. St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century laid down the ideals for waging just war are: when it is right to resort to armed force (Ius ad bellum) and what is right when using force (Ius in Bello). Ius in Bello includes the moral necessities that armed force should be discriminate and proportionate. Ius ad bellum included the following requirements: 1) just Cause 2) authorized by a competent authority 3) motivated by right intention 4) pass four prudential tests: it must a) be expected to produce a preponderance of good over evil, b) have a reasonable hope of success, c) ...read more.


it, and that is why people believe that the killing of innocent people during war is seen as different to the killing of an innocent man by a random person in a street. I do believe there is a difference in that I take the utilitarian view that as long as it is for the greatest good for the greatest number of people and that war should be used as a last resort and that the outcome should always be positive however there is one point within the utilitarian view point that I do not agree with and that is the fact that it is not the death of innocent people that is the objected to though regrettable this can be excused in terms of military necessity it rather the use of weapons which inflicts pain out of all proportion to the military or political advantages gained by it's use. My main concern within warfare is the killing out thousands maybe millions during war and second is the concern with the weapons. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. The Sinking of the Lusitania A Justifiable Act of War, or an Immoral Attack ...

    of the Americans, a look into the German's point of view, in a noble attempt to calm the masses. With all of the articles circling the media at that time that blamed Germany for the killing of the non-combatant passengers on the Lusitania, this editorial justified the sinking and stood out.

  2. Assess whether any moral principles have relevance to warfare.

    The single most relevant fact to any moral assessment upon warfare, conventional, terrorist or even total warfare is of the immense power and destructiveness. The tradition has thus been doubly influential, dominating both moral and legal discourse surrounding war. Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into two parts.

  1. Life in lead How did humanity go so wrong? In the space of ...

    I wish I'd died with all the others. Their faces haunt me, I see them in my head and I shudder. I will never see those faces again but I'll remember them, and every hour of every day, I'll replay the events that killed them all. * * * My life first started to change one mundane day in June.

  2. "War is killing and all killing is wrong therefore war is wrong" Do you ...

    the killing of them is a great sin" (Surah 17:31) This would suggest to Muslims that this form of killing is wrong but we must also look for where killing is allowed such as in battles where we know Muhammed slayed many of his enemies which would suggest that it is allowed for the killing of humans in war.

  1. Explain the different Christian attitudes to warfare.

    This shows that the Old Testament is very pacifist. This also means that the Quakers would follow/read this. On the other hand there are many Christians who believe war is acceptable if it is justified and follows the certain rules.

  2. Pacifism and Christianity

    Joshua 6:20-27 says: So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets, and it came about, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the people shouted with a great shout and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight ahead, and they took the city.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work