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

"Justice and War are incompatible". Discuss War is defined as armed conflict between two or more groups. The purpose of war is to resolve conflict.

Extracts from this document...


"Justice and War are incompatible". Discuss War is defined as armed conflict between two or more groups. The purpose of war is to resolve conflict. We see from Richard Norman that war by its very nature is problematic because it involves activities, which are normally thought deeply wrong. For example, the deliberate maiming and killing of other human beings. The main concern with any type of war is whether it can be justified. Some people may say war can never be justified because it goes against values we humans should hold, such as the preservation of human life. These people may include pacifists who believe in the sanctity of life. Other people may believe war can be justified if the just war criteria are met. Patriots may believe war can be justified because we have a duty to fight for our country and protect out neighbour. Some people may believe justice and war are incompatible because the intentional killing of another human being can never be seen as a justified act. Pacifists believe all fighting is wrong and that there are more creative ways to resolve conflict such as boycotts, sit-ins and strikes. ...read more.


Jesus did not use violence at his arrest in self-defence. So war and justice are incompatible because we should love our enemy and we are not loving them by killing them. However others and myself may disagree and believe justice and war are compatible especially in the case of self-defence. Elizabeth Anscombe argues pacifism is mistaken because it denies a person of self-defence and places unacceptable and extra-ordinary limits on an individual's rights. It is also dangerous because it encourages the belief that all killing is wrong and makes no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate killing or justified and unjustified killing. Louis Pojman asks what is a right if we do not have the right to defend it? Pacifists claim war and justice are incompatible because of Jesus' teaching of "turn the other cheek". However, it is one thing to offer your own cheek, but quite different to offer your neighbour's cheek. Also Jesus used violence to fight for what he thought was right. He fought for justice; therefore we see justice and war are compatible. For example, he used violence to challenge those who misused the temple as a place to make money. ...read more.


Only the force necessary to achieve the aim of war must be used. This rules out the use of nuclear weapons etc. Finally there must be discrimination over targets. Civilians must not be killed. Jus ad bellum considers when it is right to go to war. The war must have a just cause. Jus in bello considers how wars should be fought. This is very difficult to decide in our modern world because of the weapons available and the destruction they cause. Justice and war are compatible if the just war criteria are met and the principle of proportionality is implemented. Although we see this is difficult to meet in the modern world, especially because of the introduction of nuclear weapons as they cause mass destruction. In my opinion the use of modern weapons, which can cause devastation, can never be justified. This is because innocent civilians are killed and cities are usually bombed causing strain on resources, such as water. However, I do think justice and war are compatible in certain circumstances, such as an attempt to overthrow a dictator. In my opinion justice and war are compatible, but in modern society I do not think war can be justified because of the weapons used. ?? ?? ?? ?? Sehrish Saleemi ...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. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    Truman's dilemma was compounded by the extent to which Roosevelt had acted" as his own secretary of state, sharing with almost no one his plans for the postwar period. Roosevelt placed little trust in the State Department's bureaucracy, disagreed with the suspicion exhibited toward Russia by most foreign service officers,

  2. In what ways was the Pacific war a racist conflict?

    In typical Capra style, it used elements of the Japanese's own propaganda and discredited it. In this instance, the commentary in parts of the film was Japans own rhetoric of co-existence and co-prosperity, while the pictures showed the mutilated corpses of Chinese men, women, and children.

  1. The Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Another cause of tension was the movement of the junior judge in Jerusalem, Mohammed Amin al-Hussein, known as the 'Mufti.' This group eliminated Jewish settlers and also any Arab who tried to live with and work with the Jews. In return Britain allowed the Jews to set-up their own defence force, known as the Haganah.

  2. Arab-Israeli Conflict 1948-1996.

    The Camp David negotiations took place over 12 days, beginning on the 5th September, 1978. Camp David was overlooked by US President Jimmy Carter and by the end of the accords, two agreements between Sadat and Israel leader Begin had been signed, healing the conflict between Egypt and Israel.

  1. Must a defensible theory of the morality of war must integrate moral reasoning with ...

    According to Walzer it is; "the observance or violation of the customary and positive rules of engagement"6. The observance of the rules of engagement falls in this case primarily on the armed forces; officers and the soldier himself. Worth noting here is that in addition to being a moral framework

  2. Rationality, Educated Opinion and Peace

    of all and reality, which in [Angell's] favoured area was the incompatibility of warfare and such well-being.21" However, within the historical context, Angell believes that 'unreason' prevailed. Angell believes that the public mind is often irrational, because it is too easily persuaded; it does not possess sufficient information, nor the

  1. Dismantling Violence in Mozambique.

    Rituals were performed to commemorate the dead. Continuous cleansing ceremonies were held to heal the physical and emotional wounds. People who returned to their villages were given physical and spiritual baths in order to reclaim a new life and reenter their communities. "Reintegration helped a person reconstruct a viable life" (Nordstrom 146).

  2. The purpose of my examination of war is to question whether the resort to ...

    of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any state, (Luban, 211)." Michael Walzer also speaks of political independence and the right to defend it within the legalist paradigm; "Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act.

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