• 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...

Introduction

How far is killing in warfare more justifiable than other kinds of killing? Whether killing is more justifiable in some circumstances than other depends on which stance one takes as regards to violence in general, violence as the means of conflict solving and whether killing in warfare is actually different to other kinds of killing. Pacifists believe that violence is always wrong and cannot be used to achieve any aim, even peace and justice. The just war theory believes that although undesirable, violence is sometimes justified and killing is inevitable. There are other circumstances in which it is legally permitted to kill; this includes cases of self defense, abortion and euthanasia. The supporters of animal rights would consider violent any sort of industry that kills animals for production; one has to consider whether war is any different. Pacifism clearly states that killing is wrong. No cause or consequence can justify killing, and no provocation can ever be considered sufficient to retaliate with methods that may and do kill. ...read more.

Middle

Such negative Utilitarians would argue that killing is justifiable in warfare only, because it is directed at less people feeling pain, and long term peace. However, other Utilitarians may argue that if we refuse to fight than we would set a better example, thus leading to non violent methods such as diplomacy becoming the norm, and more happiness for more people consequentially. The followers of the Just War Theory would argue that killing can be justified if a violent and harmful state needs to be resisted. If it is legally tolerable to kill out of self defense then surely killing in warfare is perfectly justifiable. It too can be regarded as self defense, because the antagonist state is acting like a dangerous and unstable individual that must be liquidated to ensure the safety of others. Furthermore, not all Christians are pacifists. There are those who believe they must fight for their state because thus is God's will and killing in warfare would be merely exercising God's plan that punishes the wicked and granting those who do good forgiveness. ...read more.

Conclusion

Walzer thinks that responding aggressively to an attack is the same as killing in self-defense, and thus is justifiable. Each state has the duty to protect its citizens and thus must have the right to militarily defend itself, but only if attacked. Killing is not wrong in the absolute sense, but is only allowed in particular circumstances. Thus, killing in warfare (presuming the war has a just cause) is more acceptable than other kinds of killing. This approach is called Christian Realism - recognizing the inevitability of warfare the followers if this approach argue that such killing is the lesser of two evils. To conclude it can be said that killing in warfare can be justified above other forms of killing because it is aimed to prevent evil from dominating. However, the clear cut Pacifist position opposes all kinds of killing equally because it only leads to more harm caused. Alternatively, there are contingent positions - people who are against warfare in principle yet state that as the lesser of two evils, killing in violence can be justified. ?? ?? ?? ?? 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

    and since in this individual case, it was the right thing to do, he would be right. This is an abuse of the system and some will abuse it. KANT Immanuel Kant considered humans to be obligated to follow a moral obligation such as "thou shalt not kill".

  2. Just War

    are sometimes guilty, therefore, of accepting tyranny and oppression rather than fighting against evil. Although war is a monstrous evil and killing is an appalling offence against Jesus' teaching, nevertheless it may be more evil not to take up arms in some.

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

    Hence, no other single value ever overrides the value of life, except possibly more life. Some combinations of other values, separately insufficient, may conceivably override the value of a life. What follows are some elaborations and comparisons of these three types of SL positions.

  2. Is Killing Ever Morally Justifiable?

    I believe killing without reason is wrong and not justifiable at all but things like war, euthanasia and abortion. In war, you are killing an armed combatant and I do not believe that is wrong but to purposely kill an unarmed, non-combatant person is murder.

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