Pros And Cons Of A Just War
Just War
Thousands of years ago, before motor vehicles, before long distance travel, before Christianity itself, scholars and philosophers were debating a question which is still on the forefront of many minds today: Is war ever just? By the 4th century, St. Augustine, also known as Augustine of Hippo, had developed a set of criteria regarding when it was justified to go to war (Patterson). These criteria are still widely used today, although debated by many, especially with the recent use of drones and unmanned vehicles in war. Religious figures also debate this topic, as some regard human life as sacred, with no just opportunity for taking another life, while others regard it as necessary, and still other religions reach an interesting compromise …show more content…
The traditional Just War Theory, long cited as the criteria for a just war, are still solid, and if these criteria are met, then the war is justified. These criteria, established in the 4th century, traditionally include the following: the war must be a last resort, all violence must be backed by legitimate authority, there must be just cause, there must be a probability for success, with right intention, there must be a proportionality of means, and civilians must never be a target of war (Augustine, as discussed by Patterson). If these are followed, as argued by centuries of leaders, then the war is justified. Another common justification for war is known as “Responsibility to protect” (R2P). With R2P, as defined by Juan Francisco Lobo, outsiders have a responsibility to protect civilians, prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing, even if by force. This responsibility holds people to an ethical standard to protect other human beings. In this circumstance, the necessary use of violence is not to destroy human lives, but to protect them. These guidelines are only reinforced by the fact that they have developed independently over several time periods and geographic barriers, in multiple religions. For example, Mulsum standards condone war, as long as they do not “transgress limits” (Holy Qur’an, 22:39-40). In the Islamic faith, limits similar to the traditional Just War Theory present themselves. Some examples include always trying to achieve peace, no pre-emptive strikes, not killing prisoners or stripping them of dignity (Rashid, as qtd in Sekar et al.). Hinduism calls for respect of the elderly, young, and women in combat, and believes that only like forces should fight, for example, cavalry should fight only cavalry (Sekar). More than this, religions have even justified
Thousands of years ago, before motor vehicles, before long distance travel, before Christianity itself, scholars and philosophers were debating a question which is still on the forefront of many minds today: Is war ever just? By the 4th century, St. Augustine, also known as Augustine of Hippo, had developed a set of criteria regarding when it was justified to go to war (Patterson). These criteria are still widely used today, although debated by many, especially with the recent use of drones and unmanned vehicles in war. Religious figures also debate this topic, as some regard human life as sacred, with no just opportunity for taking another life, while others regard it as necessary, and still other religions reach an interesting compromise …show more content…
The traditional Just War Theory, long cited as the criteria for a just war, are still solid, and if these criteria are met, then the war is justified. These criteria, established in the 4th century, traditionally include the following: the war must be a last resort, all violence must be backed by legitimate authority, there must be just cause, there must be a probability for success, with right intention, there must be a proportionality of means, and civilians must never be a target of war (Augustine, as discussed by Patterson). If these are followed, as argued by centuries of leaders, then the war is justified. Another common justification for war is known as “Responsibility to protect” (R2P). With R2P, as defined by Juan Francisco Lobo, outsiders have a responsibility to protect civilians, prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing, even if by force. This responsibility holds people to an ethical standard to protect other human beings. In this circumstance, the necessary use of violence is not to destroy human lives, but to protect them. These guidelines are only reinforced by the fact that they have developed independently over several time periods and geographic barriers, in multiple religions. For example, Mulsum standards condone war, as long as they do not “transgress limits” (Holy Qur’an, 22:39-40). In the Islamic faith, limits similar to the traditional Just War Theory present themselves. Some examples include always trying to achieve peace, no pre-emptive strikes, not killing prisoners or stripping them of dignity (Rashid, as qtd in Sekar et al.). Hinduism calls for respect of the elderly, young, and women in combat, and believes that only like forces should fight, for example, cavalry should fight only cavalry (Sekar). More than this, religions have even justified