The ethical and moral justifications of the "Just War Theory" have been discussed continuously for several years. The ethical issue has created two sides of opposing views, those who view "Just War" as ethical and those who view it as unethical. Even today, the "Just War" theory still creates passionate debates among philosophers and religious leaders as well as throughout the public. Some proponents of Just War theory argue that it brings peace and justice, while those opposing just war theory note the damages and even instability are created by wars. However, both sides agree that war is necessary where peace can not be achieved by peaceful means. In the recent past, the war in Iraq that was started by the U.S and its allies has ignited a passionate debate over if this war is a just war. To further investigate these opposing viewpoints, this position paper will attempt to explain the issue by looking at both sides of the issue. Various positions on both sides will be highlighted, and then a position will arrived at basing on the findings of both sides. Lastly, this paper will conclude in favor of just war.
(...)
In any debate over war, it’s impossible for the church or the mass to voice one view point on the issue. This is because even the Bible itself has two opposing aspects on the issue. On one side, the Bible teaches Christians that rulers who pursue their own individual goals against the people wish sin against the will of God, and in such a situation other world rulers are supposed to at times enforce peace even through force, though under Gods guidelines. But, on the side, God wishes man to live peaceful without fighting and killing each other. Thus all Christians exonerate some level of coercion, however, they basically they are peaceful.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Statement of Fact
3. War brings justice
4. War ensures peace
5. War is a moral obligation
6. War is normally the last resort
7. Recommendations
8. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This position paper examines the ethical and moral justification of Just War theory by analyzing both pro-war and anti-war perspectives, ultimately seeking to establish a framework for determining when military intervention can be considered a just necessity.
- The ethical tension between Christian teachings on peace and the necessity of force.
- The role of legitimate authority and "right intent" in justifying warfare.
- The critical analysis of war as a tool for social justice versus a source of instability.
- The evaluation of preemptive military action and the "last resort" criterion.
- A proposed set of six doctrinal principles to guide legitimate military intervention.
Excerpt from the Book
War brings justice
The proponents of war observe that war helps to restore justice when carried out by a legitimate body. Though secular records on the custom considers legitimate authority to be head of governments, with others giving international bodies such as the United Nations to be legitimate bodies, Christians teachings acknowledges legitimate powers in a broader concept. Powers over issues of life and death only belongs to God, but, he shares this powers the ruling authority. (Romans, 13:17). It’s against these teachings that governing powers can sanction war.
However, though there is delegation of power, even those who propose war warn that this does not give the rulers an express authority to wage war. Stauffer (par, 4) observes that, Christian teachings on just war outline that justness of any war does not sorely rest on the hands of the ruler. The ruler has to seek wise advice from his advisers. More important it is acknowledged that soldiers also ought to make their individual determination of how a war should be fought justly. MacDonald et al (p, 46) observes that, the church is expected to act as an oversight of the war. This has happened many times when church leaders mediate in armed conflicts. When such steps have been laid down, those who support just war theory observes that it becomes justifiable to wage war on evil powers.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the ongoing ethical controversy surrounding Just War theory and the paper's intent to evaluate opposing viewpoints.
Statement of Fact: Explores the biblical contradictions regarding war, noting the tension between peaceful coexistence and the duty to maintain justice.
War brings justice: Discusses the requirements for legitimate authority and the necessity of oversight to ensure wars are fought for heavenly justice.
War ensures peace: Examines the argument that war can be a tool to establish peace and stop oppression, while cautioning against preventive warfare.
War is a moral obligation: Analyzes the concept of "right intent" and the requirement for consistency and character in those who wage war.
War is normally the last resort: Explains the necessity of exhausting all peaceful avenues before resorting to military force.
Recommendations: Proposes six essential doctrines that must be satisfied for a war to be considered ethically just.
Conclusion: Summarizes the debate and reaffirms that while controversial, Just War theory remains a necessary framework for addressing oppression.
Keywords
Just War Theory, Ethics, Morality, Social Justice, Peace, Legitimate Authority, Right Intent, Last Resort, Christian Teachings, Warfare, Political Objectives, Non-violence, Military Intervention, Human Life, Conflict Resolution
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this position paper?
The paper explores the ethical and moral debates surrounding the "Just War" theory, specifically examining whether it is possible to reconcile the use of force with peaceful, moral, and religious values.
What are the primary thematic areas covered in the text?
The core themes include the interpretation of biblical teachings regarding war, the criteria for "legitimate authority," the importance of "right intent," and the necessity of viewing war as a final resort for social justice.
What is the ultimate goal or research question of this study?
The paper aims to investigate opposing viewpoints on Just War theory to arrive at a balanced position, ultimately suggesting that while war is a horrible duty, it can be justified under specific, strictly defined conditions.
Which scientific or analytical method is utilized?
The author employs a comparative and normative analysis, evaluating historical and contemporary theological and philosophical arguments to construct a set of practical recommendations for military engagement.
What topics are addressed in the main body of the paper?
The main body examines the biblical basis for war, the concepts of justice and peace, the role of moral obligation, and the essential requirement of last-resort diplomacy.
Which keywords best characterize the paper?
Key terms include Just War Theory, social justice, legitimate authority, right intent, last resort, moral obligation, and religious ethics.
Why does the author argue that "right intent" is difficult to assess?
The author highlights that human intentions are inherently opaque and prone to hypocrisy, suggesting that consistency, character, and the ability to confess past injustices are necessary to verify if a war is truly for peace.
How does the paper propose to solve the controversy regarding Just War?
The author suggests that all parties—rulers, governments, and the international community—must agree on six specific, binding criteria (including legitimate authority and success achievability) before any military intervention is initiated.
- Quote paper
- Ellen Garcia (Author), 2013, Just War Theory, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/271550
