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

Does a declaration of war justify behaviour that would be unacceptable in peacetime?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Does a declaration of war justify behaviour that would be unacceptable in peacetime? Whether or not the declaration of Just War justifies behaviour that is morally or legally unacceptable in peacetime depends firstly on the sort of behaviour we are talking about. There are a number of behaviours that are legally permitted in peacetime that many people would and do reject as morally unacceptable. This includes abortion, euthanasia and animal rights. The legal acceptability of these issues depends on the government, and varies from state to state. In this country, during peacetime it is acceptable to kill in self defence - for instance, if one's house is being robbed and the burglar threatens the owner, the owner would not be penalized for shooting and killing the burglar. Pacifists object to all kinds of killing in both war and peacetime, whereas just war supporters try to draw parallels between civil justice and international justice in the attempt to justify certain behaviour. ...read more.

Middle

Therefore a declaration of just war would not be able to justify any unacceptable behaviour such as murder and violence - this would only further divide men, who are already divided by sin. Nevertheless, those who support the Just War theory believe that killing in the name of resisting an unjust oppressor is justifiable. The declaration of just war must be a proportionate response, and must discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. Oliver O'Donovan suggests war is an act of armed judgment and must be carried out by an unbiased judge to ensure its fairness. This judge must have a clear perspective on the gains and losses this act would entail and the final aim must be to bring about peace. In theory, military aggression is not defined by killing and violence. For instance, British troops that entered Iraq do not kill unless attack. Therefore killing is still self defence and this is no different to peacetime. ...read more.

Conclusion

Propoganda can lead to disproportionate warfare and killings, therefore it cannot be justified. Human rights have always been an issue, for it is no certain whether it is morally right to deny someone the right to life in favour of another objective. From a utilitarian perspective, it would depend on whether the war was successful. If more people than soldiers killed are able to lead happy and fulfilled lives after the war ends, then it is acceptable to justify military confrontation in wartime. However, The High Court has recently decided that it soldiers human rights should not be overlooked either. This means the Ministry of Defence has to ensure the soldiers are not subjected to combat in intolerable heat or cold, and have functioning equipment. Certain equipment would be forbidden entirely, such as Nimrod planes. Of course, this would affect the damage potential of British troops, and possibly extend the war and subsequently take more lives. A utilitarian critic would ask whether in the long term this court order is going to cause more death and pain. ?? ?? ?? ?? Anna Grinevich (c) ...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 Practical Questions 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 Practical Questions essays

  1. RE euthanasia for and against

    refuse to do it because it goes against what being a doctor is about, they should be saving lives not ending them. Others would argue that we couldn't legalise euthanasia because some doctors would look to lower costs and perhaps recommend or perform euthanasia unnecessarily.

  2. Utilitarianism is unjust

    Some encounter more struggles than others and to the extreme take their life to end their pain. So to someone whose only value is pleasure, would he/she not be a fool to enter the machine. I understand his points of valuing other goods in life; however I do not think it applies to all and therefore his objection is false.

  1. Just War

    to respond to violence with non-violence, returning good for evil: "You have heard it said 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes your right cheek, turn to him the other also."

  2. Is the term 'Just War' now outdated?

    Back then the American Roman Catholic bishops condemned the use of nuclear weapons because they are indiscriminate and disproportionate. But even if it is possible to maintain diplomacy between countries and avoid NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry)

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

    the outcome will result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people. However, if for instance the head of a certain state decides that depositing a tyrannical dictator will result in fewer people will experience suffering, then warfare is chosen.

  2. Is Christ a Kantian?

    I also believe that Christ has a perfect solution to this problem, and this whole article can thus be also seen as an attempt in applying the philosophy of Christ to this most important and interesting problem in both philosophical ethics and our lives.

  1. Modern life-prolonging technologies have sharpened some ancient dilemmas on the value of life.

    They merely locate the sanctity of life in the basis or foundation, the vital signs, which are all that remain when the quality of a life is disregarded. SL proponents need not be primitivist or anti-intellectual, although they often are.

  2. Does the "War on Terror" mean the just war doctrine is dead?

    was a pre-emptive war, and in the lead up to the Iraq war the Bush administration has used the terms pre-emptive and preventive interchangeably as the same meaning. Pre-emptive war is justified, not only in exceptional circumstances but when there is obviously an imminent and immediate threat.

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