War should never occur. Do you agree? Critically discuss this statement. Include an Christian viewpoint, your own & another and employ critical thinking skills

A realist would absolutely disagree with the statement. This is because realists believe that war is permissible by any means so long as the outcome results in the greater good. The Realist attitude towards war has both religious and secular versions. A Realist would follow Utilitarianism and apply Situation Ethics. They would strongly disagree with the Pacifist and Just War theories because Pacifism is naïve or unrealisable due to egoistic human nature. Just War theory is against self-interest. Realists believe utilitarianism consequentialism is more effective justification of warfare. An example would be Henry Kissinger – a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize who allowed the bombing of Cambodia and thus allowing to the end the Vietnam War although it resulted in many deaths. A quote to support the realist view is “war is a continuation of politics by other means” Von Clausewitz.

I disagree with the former views and argue that the Just War Theory is the most practical and most logically coherent approach to warfare. This theory believes that war is permissible in some circumstances. The Just War Theory provides a 7 criteria which must be met before any war can legally occur. The underlying theory of justice is not retributive justice but rather protective justices and deterrent justice. The theory follows the relativists, teleological and consequentialist principle. The theory is derived from the Christian principle of Natural Law, that life must be preserved. “The Lord is a warrior, the Lord is his name” Exodus 15:3. Therefore war can only occur if the 7 criteria are met, for the war to be justified. For war to occur these premises must be met; first war being started by the right authority, to have a just cause so preserve the social order, must be fought with the right intentions, must be a last resort, there must be a reasonable chance of success, fought with the right proportion and lastly the requirement of discrimination must be met. Britain’s declaration of war against Germany in World War 2 appears to have met most of The Just War criteria. To this day the UN employs the Just War criteria when making decisions on going to war or not.  

Realism allows nations to act at their own will, allowing freedom of choice. However it is this freedom that can so easily lead to egoism and pure self-interest. Allowing people to believe in things that may be truly wrong and that something they believe in which is completely unjust. I believe that it is only so far for one to peruse their belief before crossing that line. In which their self-interest takes a step too far and so allowing mass murder to happen, which cannot be risked. Therefore I believe in the Just War Theory and believe that it is the most convincing argument out of the 3 as you have to follow certain steps before committing violence and war. Meaning that you can’t go to war just for the sake of it and that we need to release that world is not a perfect and safe place, meaning that Pacifism in a way is not ideal. The world is not a peaceful place but full of violence, there are many places in the world where violence occurs. Pacifism can only work if everyone co-operates because if one person turns to violence then there is no peace. Being against all forms of war and therefore being in peace will mean everyone needs to be involved. Therefore, based on the above analysis, it should be evident war should occur in some circumstances but not in others and that the Just War theory is strongest argument on this issue.