Outline the concepts of just war and pacifism Essay

Outline the key concepts of on the nose fight and Pacifism. A01 21 The Just fight theory maintains that state of strugglefare may be confirm if fought moreover in certain circum locations, and only if certain restrictions argon applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was world-class propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions when is it right to fight? and How should war be fought?.Whereas Pacifists be bulk mainly Christians who reject the put on of fierceness and the deliberate killing of civilians only when claims that peace is intrinsic eithery intelligent and ought to be upheld either as a debt instrument and that war gouge never be justifiable. nevertheless, Realists agree that, cod to the nature of humans, jam is a necessary action to be used to maintain a just and ordered society.Therefore, since the Second serviceman War, slew piss move their at tention to Just War again establishing rules that rout out allot as guidelines to a just war- the Hague and geneva conventions. Mevery Christians had taken the view that war may be justifiable on a lower floor certain circumstances, and only if fought observing certain rules of conduct. Wars against the Muslim control of Jerusalem in the 11th-13th centuries were sometimes seen as holy wars which were popularly regarded as Crusades. Some philosophers based their justifications on the stories in the Bible.For example, St Paul in Romans 134 wrote that rulers are servants of God for he is the minister of God, a r change surfaceger to execute wrath upon him that doeth condemnable. In the 13th century, doubting Thomas Aquinas gave an outline (the first ternion criteria of a just war) on the Justification of war and the kinds of acts that are allowed in a war in Summa Theologica. His ideas became the model of later scholars such(prenominal) as Franciso Suarez and Francisco de Vitoria. The first three conditions necessary for a just war were listed by Aquinas which included right allowance, just realise and just intention.These and the three additional conditions that were later included, were referred to as Jus ad Bellum-rules about when it is right and just to go to war. Aquinas asserted that just delegacy meant that war could only be started by legitimate authority the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. He wrote that sovereign authority which has been elect legitimately has the sole authority to declare war.This meant that, thither suffer be no private armies of individuals who can start a war and, equally, an incompetent government or sovereign does non have the authorityto initiate war. Just cause, is considered to be one of the most important conditions of jus ad bellum. Aquinas once state that, those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. It was considered that self def ence against corporal aggression was the only sufficient reason for just cause.Finally, Aquinas wrote that the war fought with just intention, was to be for the betterment of good, or the avoidance of evil. Kant once said that sovereigns could not fight wars for immoral intentions only for good motives. During a state of conflict, right intention should mean for peace and reconciliation. Therefore, soldiers cannot use or encourage a hatred of a minority in war.Their intentions must always be virtuous. In the 16th and seventeenth century, Suarez and de Vitoria added three additional conditions proportionality in the conduct of war, only entering war as a last resort, and only fighting when at that place is a reasonable chance of success. Hence when dealing with proportionality, a state should never wage war that causes relatively more suffering and terminal than the actual defective done by the enemy.Therefore, in any case, excessive violence, death and disability should be avo ided. For example, it was not proportionable for the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan that were conducted by the United States during the final stages of World War II in 1945. Additionally, all undisturbed attempts at resolution must have been exhausted before violence is used. War cannot be chosen as a first response but as the last resort.Also, there should a reasonable chance of success during a war. Its immoral to enter into a dim war, thus magnifying the suffering and loss for no constructive reason. There have always been rules of conduct in war, although such rules have often been ignored. In Christian tradition, there are conditions of conduct that limit the point in time of destruction and who may or should not be killed. These conditions were referred to as Jus in Bello- rules governing how war should be fought.The principles include only legitimate targets should be attacked, proportionality and that, agents of war should be responsible for their actions. An act of war aimed indiscriminately using chemical/biological weapons at the entire cities or of extensive areas along with their populations, is not only a crime against God but one against humanity and should be condemned.Also, it is unfair and below the belt of attack non-combatants (civilians, or innocents) because it is against their rightand therefore they cannot be justly attacked. However, the Just war theory comes under criticism from those who advocate pacifism. They maintain that war is always injure. Pacifism is described to be the opposition of all forms of violence as a means of settling disputes, either between individuals or between countries.The Christian argument for pacifism is based on Jesus teaching in the Sermon on the tantalize where he rejected the option to use physical force even in defence of himself against dirty aggressors. An example includes the misfortune at Gethsemane where Jesus ordered Peter to drop his sword and not to s tretch out the authorities (Matthew 2652).Mennonites and Quakers are two groups that emphasise pacifism. Members of this group conscientiously object to violence and have been often persecuted as a result. They believe that Just war theory ignores the essential pacifist stance taken by Jesus. An absolute pacifist claims that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence.They believe that peace is intrinsically good and should be upheld whether as a duty or on that it is better for humans to live at peace than war. They think that the lever of human aliveness is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. These pacifists claim that they would choose to die rather than raise their fists to protect themselves. This is because killing in self-defence is an evil that makes the moral value of the victims life less important than our own.They rely on the fact that there can be no justification for killing which stems from the scriptures of the bible thou shalt not kill (Exodus 2013). Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spectral principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically advocate that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence in other words, there can never be any good that comes out of war or violence.On the other hand, conditional Pacifists offer a more flexible approach which allows the use of violence under certain circumstances. Pacifism is a word defined by Martin Caedel to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace.Conditional pacifists usually base their moral code on Utilitarian principles its the bad consequences that make it wrong to resort to war or violence. These pacifists accept that sometimes our duties to uphold peace and non-violence may conflict with the duty to save or defend lives against aggression.Utilitarian pacifists claim that wars generally do not produce favorable results but in certain circumstances, they can be acceptable.Such examples may include wars to protect people from genocide. To conclude, the Just war theory accepts that human nature is evil and most often use force to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, past philosophers and the present generation have offered moral guidelines that serve as justifications for the act of war. Whereas, pacifism which firstly originated from Christians believe that war and the act of violence is intrinsically evil and that peace should be the resolution of all conflicts in the society.Comment on the views that a pacifist can never accept the principles of Just war A02 9 Pacifism can never accept the principles of Just war due to their firm belief that, all violence or force should be forbidden. Additionally, some pacifists would surround that the advantages of the just war theory does outweigh the disadvantages simply on the ground that there is no f aith towards violence and that there is no place for ethics in war.Firstly, the criteria for a just war is considered to be unrealistic and pointless because, once the combatants have gone into battle the results of the war are unpredictable and such soldiers are unpotential to adhere to any conditions of a just war making the moral guidelines irrelevant. Pacifists argue that the results of war will always be bad since there can never be any positive outcome in war because it leaves more damage on peoples lives.For example, the holocaust that occurred during the Second World War left more harm on the victims rather than the justice the so-called Nazis were supposed to achieve. A pacifist would argue that it will be inhumane to the point of cruelty to suggest such an incident like the Holocaust was just to serve for the greater good. Therefore a pacifist would argue that war is a waste of resources given by God, a cause of immense suffering, including suffering of innocent people and they believe that war encourages greed, hatred and prejudice. Secondly, Pacifists believe that life has an absolute value.They argue that the indiscriminate mass destruction brought about by the use of nuclear and biological weapons violates the sacredness of human life. It is though that the social and moral damage caused by war is too great, and that it should be abandoned. They maintain that non-violence and non-resistance will change the minds of, or disarm those who use violence.Hence, Pacifists encourage non-violenceresistance will goes against the principles of a just war. However, the deontological objection to a just war is favoured by absolute pacifists. Similar to Reihnold Neibuhrs (1932) claim it is inevitable that humans are prone to violence or the act of violence simply because , human nature is evil(imperfect). This means that most Pacifists are most likely to have a consequential approach towards the matter.Jeff McMahan once pointed out that Pacifism is difficult t o maintain as it places extraordinary limitations on individual rights and self-defence which, in an era of weapons of mass destruction and the practice of genocide, may ultimately appear unacceptable. For this reason, Pacifists may claim that wars generally do not produce more booming results, in specific examples. They can be acceptable. Additionally, most Pacifists accept that if someone is threatened by a dangerous person then the use of violence can be permitted since it would be considered to be self-defence.Therefore, due to the inconsistencies evident in Pacifism, most Christians still accept that the use of violence can be justified in the society. To conclude, Pacifists do believe that the weaknesses of a just war theory does outweighs its strengths simply because, it lacks purpose and morality. However , others do have different views which means that they actually accept the principles of the just war theory.