For wars to be justified, I believe there must be a degree of morality in the way a war is fought. Being alive means having the opportunity to learn, to love,. They can pretend that they dont know what happened. The act of war cannot be justified for three main reasons: the horrendous short term and long term effects, wars are fought for misguided ideas of power and of righteousness, and wars are fought because of the darkest or most evil part of human nature. War can never be justified and should never be invoked because no matter what you will end up killing innocent people, destroy relationships with other countries, and become our own enemy, in a sense. I shall use the historical examples to find any patterns in the use of the word and analyse what these examples tell us about the meaning of the word.
And if a state is unable to defend itself, can another state intervene militarily on its behalf? Neither America nor Australia were absolutely justified in entering the Vietnam War, it was a civil war, not an international one. Probably those that had bronze and wooden swords felt steel swords should be outlawed in the middle ages. Only for Vietnam War, the true civilians of Vietnam War were two millions in the north, and another two millions in the south, and military causalities were 1. What something being justified means is to have something properly explained and accepted as morally appropriate. The cause of war is just i. World War Three can erect at any point.
The nation initiating the war will use its own values to justify its intentions, and these values may be at odds with those of the other party to the conflict. It's idealistic to assume that human beings will not try to take advantage of each other, or become greedy with power among other atrocities. Why can't people be treated equally? Using religious guidance, ethical theories and general arguments, I will decide for myself whether or not war can be justified. It is much easier to uphold morale if you occupy the moral high ground or are the defender. Its quite clear that Hitler had no intention to benefit Germany, himself being Austrian. Throughout my essay I shall adopt a narrow definition as I believe it allows you to explore terrorism in more detail. Sure, one would state that the aftermath resulted in peace, but it always does.
Killing should never be the purpose of war, in fact killing of innocents or inflicting suffering cannot justifiably be done if it is avoidable. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. The war that followed was particularly bloody, and the Japanese military committed countless atrocities and war crimes. Several million soldiers are killed as a result of the fighting. Any political conversation that entails the words, truth, liberty or peace run hand in hand with the use of force to create them.
War would prevent a much larger scale war. The intentions behind the war must be good. Each side answers these questions differently. Take for example World War 2. Scholars justify war using the principle of utilitarianism; they believe that war will improve the lives of many people, however, in reality; many innocent citizens are the ones who die. And who is determine if a peace is just or a wrong has been committed? I believe that if a war improves the way of life for more than those it causes suffering to, it has to be justified.
In addition, anger plays an important role in maintaining our moral order. Sometimes a war fought to prevent a wrong from happening may be considered a just war. Weapons are getting stronger with the ability to kill a million people in a second. Some maintain that due to human conditions, war is inevitable. These two sets of rules are referred to as jus ad bellum, which is the right to war, and jus in Bello, which is the right in war. However, by Miller maintaining the anonymity of the government officials involved in leaking the false reports, which resulted in a devastating war that continues to harm people today, serious questions about whether a journalist should be allowed to publish certain articles, should be asked.
But looking further into the matter, what are we really accomplishing with war? How can we ever conclude that some particular wars may be more moral than another? Hitler stated that another world scale war would bring Germany its reputation and honour back. To decide whether war can be justified, not only in the case above, but in general, we can be guided by ethical theories. The fierce war resulted in the deaths of at least 100 000 innocent civilians. There is also, in the Just War Theory, the right intention, that is fighting only to repel the other nation from its country. I am arguing that war, in some circumstances, can be morally justified.
Furthermore, the media constantly portrayed veterans as heroes, while ignoring the horrors they may have committed and by ignoring the psychological effects of warfare Kleykamp and Hipes 348. And no soldier should die for a good cause, no soldier should die, there should be no soldiers. So violence is considered as an immoral phenomenon. Revenge; what does that do for what has already happened? Conclusion But they're wrong because rather than war being the only solution I think that war is the easy way out. I see no faults in defence, its attack that makes it unjustifiable. Jus ad bellum refers to whether the option to use force in a particular situation is justified, while jus in Bello refers to whether the type of force is to be justified.