Just War Theory: Phenomenon Between Political Communities

The Philosophy of War

War is an intentional conflict that is widespread and considered a phenomenon between political communities. There are three main perspectives of the ethics of war. Just War Theory is the most influential perspective of war. Realism is very influential amongst political scientist, as well as practitioners of international relations. Literal and straightforward, a pacifist rejects war and specific kinds and degree of violence. War is an actual armed conflict, thus individual feuds do not count as War unless it is between political communities such as states, International Wars like World War 1 and 2, are considered a war between states. Terrorists are considered as political communities
Warfare is ultimately about governance and is a violent way to determine who the winner is and who the loser will be, the winner gets wealth and the power to decide what is what. War is the means for deciding what happens when peaceful resolutions cannot be made. Threats of war are not considered real nor indications of war. The conflict must be actual to count as war, both must be intentional and widespread, such as states to count as war. There is no real war unless there is intent and force. From the views of a philosopher of war, Carl Von Clausewitz suggested that war is simply "the continuation of policy by other means." This meaning war is a way to violently and forcefully resolve a policy when peaceful resolutions are ineffective. With Clausewitz's own view of war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will." Meaning war is vast and creates policies instead of just a continuation, which shows war is a development of humans. War is brutal, ugly and yet it is a part of human history and change. Although paradoxical, War reveals the darkness of humanity. War will always be a force in our lives and although we always hope in the future there would be no conflict, war has already scarred the earth. Because of War's violent and controversial effects on humanity are many question of its morals, is war wrong and can it be justified? Will it
In Pacifism, moral concepts are applied to war. It makes sense to ask if war is meaningful or important, or should it not be undertaken. Literal and straightforward, a pacifist rejects war and specific kinds and degree of violence. War for a pacifist is always wrong. Pacifists, refuse to take brutal measures such as defending oneself and is country, because of this pacifists have all the benefits as a citizen while not sharing all its burdens. Also pacifists consider themselves internal threats to the state. Pacificism is full of optimistic idealism, pacifism lacks realism. The non-violent world is nonexistent thus while we are forced to resort to war can be morally justified. Another objection to pacifism is that by not resisting international aggression, it ends up not only regarding but failing to protect the people. A reply by pacifists was that we do not have to resort to war in order to protect the people though we can disprove the pacifists’ proposition, what if there was an aggressor who was remorseless, that is when we have to use political violence. Pacifism might be a disguised form of surrender, (Walzer). There are two kinds of modern pacifism, the first is consequentiality pacifism; which weighs the benefits from war and that it cannot outweigh the cost of fighting. The second is deontological pacifism, meaning the very act of war is