• 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...

Introduction

"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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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

or


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. Arab-Israeli Conflict 1948-1996.

    As the aim was to please both sides, the first agreement concerned the future of Sinai that was to be concluded and signed within three months. This accord was effective as it made each side compromise, encouraging the two nations to keep a lasting relationship in the future.

  2. Missile Defence

    A lot of these contractors hire retired generals or high ranking military personnel to sit on their boards(cite eriterian). This tactic keeps everyone connected and eases the chances of getting lucrative contracts and go ahead to military projects. The reigning superpower, the United States would only be attacked using Weapons of mass destruction only in act of desperation.

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

    Allan Buchanan argues in his article "Institutionalizing the Just War" that there should be room for pre-emptive attacks. "Preventive war justifications hold that it can be permissible to make war to avert a temporally distant harm; forcible democratization justifications hold that it can be permissible to make war to achieve a temporally distant good, namely, democracy"9.

  2. Cold War

    Mutually assured destruction or MAD was the philosophy that "both nations had the power to destroy each other completely in the event of an attack" . This theory was based on three ideas. The first was that both nations had enough weapons to destroy the other.

  1. What is "Total War"? Discuss with reference to World War One and World War ...

    Women volunteered to work as nurses, to cook, farm workers etc. By the end of the war half a million women had replaced men in the office jobs, and almost 800,000 had taken up work in engineering industries. In fact very soon people realized that with very little training women were as skilled as men.

  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 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.

  2. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    that seemed better to accord with the pretentious significance we had attached to our war effort. As a consequence, the diplomat went on, it became difficult to pursue a policy not defined by the language of "angels or devils," "heroes" or "blackguards."

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