Essay Available:
Pages:
17 pages/≈4675 words
Sources:
28
Style:
Turabian
Subject:
Literature & Language
Type:
Coursework
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 82.62
Topic:
Philosophy/Research Responses
Coursework Instructions:
Please respond 2-3x with 200+ words each time within the dotted/number lines. Master's Level, Tubarian, 12pt, Arial, References at end of each response. you should have at least 25-28 responses. Please put responses in red so i can see them easy. Do not do the first 3 responses. up to research questions. start at research questions. I will not have any time for the revision, I need a very good quality paper because 24 hours from now (when the order is placed) - I will hand it for submission.
Coursework Sample Content Preview:
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
“Whereas the specifics of what is honorable differ with time and place, the very fact that one moral virtue is alluded to in the great literature (for example, Homer’s Iliad) is sufficient for us to note that warfare has been infused with some moral concerns from the beginning rather than war being a mere Macbethian bloodbath” (Moseley n.d.).
Ancient Rome had both success and failure in war and conquering. Rome did not allow its standing army to enter the city of the populous. With the breadth of the Roman Empire, it was necessary to have methods and rules established for war and peace. These rules could not be based on a case by case basis for the reason that everyone’s notion of justification is different.
“The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used” (Moseley n.d.).
The advantages of jus ad bellum are that there are rules to follow, yet there is flexibly enough that rules change with the times and new technological innovations and political structures. An example is how peace agreements were handled to end WWI. At the end of WWI, only some of Unites States President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points were followed. Neglecting to follow some of his suggestions by dividing colonial holdings amongst the victors (rather than allowing them to choose their sovereignty) and by choosing to hold Germany financially accountable for the war set the world up for WWII. The results led to a great depression, leaving the door wide open for movements such as Fascism and Socialism to take root in vulnerable nations. We see in history now, more than ever, that if a leader does not conform to these rules, there is an organization of nations (thank you President Wilson) that will judge and punish them.
The disadvantages to jus ad bellum is that “they invoke a [philosophical] plethora of problems by either their independent vagueness or by mutually inconsistent results – a properly declared war may involve improper intention or disproportionate ambitions” (Moseley n.d.). We see this in the reading this week about the Evangelical extreme right. Everyone’s definition of just cause is going to be different; as is who the proper authority is; and if the end result is relative to the means used.
“The rules of just conduct within war fall under the two broad principles of discrimination and proportionality. The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. A third principle can be added to the traditional two, namely the principle of responsibility, which demands an examination of where responsibility lies in war.” (Moseley n.d.).
No, the relative rightness of one’s cause cannot effect whether the jus in bello rules are followed, because then those with religious reasons, which the of course deem supreme and justified, can hide behind their religion as an excuse for not following the rules. “If we combine his [Alfarabi] teaching about just….war….with the idea of a perfect human association extending over the entire world, we can [conclude]… that Alfarabi deliberately modified the teaching of Plato and Aristotle on an important issue with the intention of supplying a rational justification for Islamic concept of holy war whose aim was to propagate the divine law everywhere on earth…” (Strauss &Cropsey 1987).
References
Moseley, Alexander. Internet Encycolpedia of Philosophy. n.d. /justwar/ (accessed April 15, 2014).
Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed. . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Darlene Smyth (Apr 18, 2014 4:08 PM) - Read by: 4HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Kim,
Glad you were able to finally get it posted. I agree that there are rules of war, but those rules change, based on the time and the war. Guerrilla warfare, first in WWII and then Korea, and Vietnam changed how we fight wars, and how we recognize the combatants from the non-combatants. The Japanese withdrew from the League of Nations, and then did not participate in the Geneva Convention, so they did not have to follow the 'acceptable'' rules of war. By trying to stay within the jus in bello mindset cost us lives in Vietnam. We did not understand that type of war, punji sticks bedded in shallow creek beds, booby-traps, machine guns manned by children, booby traps in wounded and/or dead American soldiers on the field of battle (I was told this by a veteran who witness this), , shelling of hospitals- tactics that the enemy embraced. Since Vietnam we have continued to develop and use covert troops and operations to fight wars. Battles are not always fought on a battlefield.
The philosophers we have studied had no idea of the advancements in war or the politics that control them. Good and just leaders also have to think about being re-elected now.
Darlene Smyth
/battlefieldvietnam/guerrilla/index.html
/motif/society/vietcong-war-tactics-in-vietnam
/boobytraps.htm
/weapons/boobytraps.htm SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Kimberlee Garza (Apr 19, 2014 8:33 AM) - Read by: 3HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
I agree with your statements; my father was in Vietnam for two tours and I wrote a paper on his experiences as one of the first, professional Marines deployed. My grandfather was a Marine serving in the Pacific front in WWII and has recounted the stories of storming beaches. He remembers running alongside one of his friends and from the corner of his eye watching his body take 5 or so strides after his head was blown off.
I also have a great-uncle who was the driver for a General in the Europe and witnessed the horror of the liberated Nazi concentration camps (we have his personal journal). Those personal experiences, of the men on the ground are, I think, the "real" war; void of rules and regulations. Your points about how Vietnam changed the way we fight wars today is exactly what I tell my students.
Your right about Japan as well. Japan was greatly effected by the world wide depression after WWI. One of the reasons they invaded China was because they were seeking land for farming to feed their expanding (and starving) population. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Thomas Kelly (Apr 19, 2014 2:29 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
When has the evangelical right gone to war? Tom SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza" Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Joanne Hopkins-Lucia (Apr 21, 2014 2:18 AM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
So Kim the following is a quote you wrote from Moseley:
“The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used” (Moseley n.d.)
So to comment on this, 'just war', 'the ends excuses any evil?' according to the Greek writer Sophocles. No matter what one must do, no matter the sophisticated war material used, no matter how many are murdered, if the end accomplishes the 'goal' which was the original mark, then the 'ends justify the means'?
Prince Machiavelli's writings on 'Maintaining a Princedom', relates one can be 'other than good...'.
Alfarabi writes about offensive war, to convert all to Islam, if that's what it takes, then so be it? the last part of Moseley saying the end being proportional to the means.
There is a short distance between a morally good end and morally bad end. Morally good depending who is judging, may be considered morally good, but actually is morally bad, and vice versa.
During the Holocaust millions of Jewish people died, for the Nazis this was good, for the rest of the world, is was atrocity!
Therefore, 'just war' basically is known as 'just' to many nations, but to certain, most who do not share the same views, 'just' may mean, atrocities that are waiting to be committed.
Machiavelli: The End Justifies the Means - Public bookshelf /public_htmll/Outline.../machiavelli_bfa.html
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Morality of Human Acts /archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
debate.org
Moseley, Alexander Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. /justwar/
Mahdi, Mushin, 'Alfarabi' History of Political Philosophy, 3rd Edition, Edited by Strauss and Cropsey
Joanne Hopkins-Lucia
#2
The Just War theory is the basis on which nations seek to legally and morally justify going to war. The theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. [1]
The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take and the historical aspect or the Just War tradition deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. [2]
The just war theoretical aspect tradition considers the thoughts of various philosophers and their philosophical visions and contributions that have contributed to the guides of war and warfare. [3]
There are two traditional categories of requirements for Just Wars known as Jus Ad Bellum or the conditions for going to war and Jus in Bello the conditions for behavior during war. [4]
The first condition known as Jus Ad Bellum includes four criteria including Just Authority or a legitimate government, Just Cause which includes having a detailed well explained reason, Just Intentions which states that the actions of war must be in sequence with the explained causes, and Last Resort which states that war is morally permissible only when a nation has exhausted all potential solutions including political and diplomatic. [5]
The second condition known as Jus In Bello provides the standards of conduct for nations, armies, and individual solders at war including the proportionality of force which must be measured against the force required to correct the Just cause, Discrimination which must be utilized to protect the lives of Innocent nonmilitary citizens, and Responsibility which protects warring nations against financial damage as long as the Jus In Bello criteria are met. [6]
This history of the Theory begins with the works of some important biblical scriptures that hint at the ethical behavior in war including the concepts of just cause which typically announces the justice of war by divine intervention. [7]
Throughout history many religious leaders have provided religious foundations in their analysis of warring nations included among these influential leaders are Christian philosophers such as St Augustine who provided comments on the morality of war from the Christian perspective. His theory involved eight principles elements including a punitive conception of war, assessment of the evil of war in terms moral evil of attitudes and desires, a search for authorization for the use of violence, a dualistic epismology which gives priority to spiritual goods, interpretation of evangelical norms in terms of inner attitudes, passive attitudes to authority and social change, use of biblical texts to legitimate participation in war, and an analogical conception of peace. [8]
St Thomas Aquinas who in Summa Theogicas provided written criteria of just war theory whish are the standards utilized by many modern day nations during war.
Al Farabi a Muslim who shared many of the same views as Augustine and Aristotle rejected the idea of warfare for the plunder or enslavement of inhabitants. He did however adopt Aristotle’s view that some people were better suited for servitude including the fact that military offensives were justifiable if the goal was to bring virtue to ignorant people. [9] SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists" Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Thomas Kelly (Apr 19, 2014 2:32 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Having laid out the conditions of a just war, was the US invasion/liberation of Iraq a just war? Did it meet the criteria? Tom SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists" Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Ruth Brown (Apr 19, 2014 5:15 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
In researching the United States War with Iraq it was noted that the invasion/liberation of Iraq did not meet the criteria of a a Just War.
To begin although the United States government was seeking to protect the national security of the country the government had no concrete evidence that could be used a justifiable cause to declare war on Iraq.
The Intentions of war was to end the development of weapons of mass destruction, capture Saddam Hussein, and create a democratic Iraqi government.
The United States government failed in trying to resolved the situation in a diplomatic manner by refusing the negotiation efforts of many of the country's leaders including the United States Allies and the United Nations.
During the war the United States destroyed petroleum fields and key government centers that was home to the countries historical artifacts many of which were stolen by looters. The war also resulted in 7,500 civilian deaths an no capture of Hussein.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists"Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Thomas Kelly (Apr 20, 2014 1:15 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Last Edit By Thomas Kelly Apr 20, 2014 01:16 pm President Bush said, HYPERLINK "/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/sou012902.htm""Our cause is just." Didn't leaders of old make the same claims before waging unjust wars? What does that say about the effectiveness or usefulness of JWT? Tom SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists"Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Ruth Brown (Apr 20, 2014 7:47 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Yes they did especially with the Vietnam War I do not understand the country's involvement in the war especially with the problems experienced at home and equally Japan I know the bombing of pearl Harbor was bad but to kill so many innocent people SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists "Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Michael Nelson (Apr 20, 2014 10:30 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Ruth,
Your post summarized the theories and topics discussed this week in very concise and easy to read manner. I enjoyed reading it and I have just a few thoughts. Of particular note is the link between the principles of the “just war” and the modern Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Modern LOAC summarized the same principles laid out in this week’s lesson and reading. For St. Augustus, the idea that Christianity and “war” or armed conflict were compatible was of great necessity because the Romans had come to believe that their issues with conquest and military defeat were in fact caused by their “conversion” (and I use that term very loosely) to Christianity as a state. (Fortin 1987, 199). St. Aquinas, like the apostle Paul in Romans 13, asserted that Christianity was not only compatible, but could actually enhance Roman political life while keeping government out of religion and religion out of politics. This principle is stated in our First Amendment (even if there is was a legalistic twisting of this idea in the last century).
The use of force to bring about peace is also stated in the foreign policy of Ronald Regan in his “peace through strength” and the threat of “total mutual annihilation” seen during the Cold War with Russia. Some would argue that peace can only be “negotiated” or brought about through diplomacy. However, history has demonstrated the opposite to be true. And so, both World Wars and the Cold War are modern examples of peace through victory when dealing with oppressive and destructive regimes and its ideas/worldviews. As with the case in the nuclear bombing of Japan, the idea of what exactly is the proper level force used can only be weighed against the consequential military and humanitarian gain. The threat of such force can also be used to maintain the balance of power in a region or in the world at as a whole.
Fortin, Ernest L. "St. Augustine." In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 176-205. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
The thought of Locke and Smith have the strongest presence in America today followed by Rousseau and Hume. Locke and Smith are inseparable from the fabric of America; their ideas permeate the American mind. Rousseau is present to a lesser extent, and often seems to be split among the left and the right. Hume is hidden from view, or at least mine.
Locke's ideas, apparently, affected the Founding Fathers tremendously. He is literally written into American ideology. He believed that men were born free and equal (Goldwin 1987, 477). This is taken as a given for Americans, and many others in the world, today. Locke rooted these freedoms in his state of nature, which was a more peaceful one than that of Hobbes (Goldwin 1987, 478). He believed that men had a duty of self-preservation to themselves, and a duty to preserve mankind in general, the law of nature (Goldwin 1987, 482-483). Locke believed that men moved out of a state of nature into civil society in order to protect property. He believed that God had originally given the world to man in common. Everyone was entitled to take from this universal common. Since each man owned his own labor, what they took became theirs due to the labor that they performed to gather it (Goldwin 1987, 486-487). Due to spoilage, early man could not accumulate wealth, but with the invention of money, man was able to accumulate it. This wealth needed to be protected from others. This need for protection led to the birth of civil society (Goldwin 1987, 489-495). The protection of property rights is a particularly strong strand in American thought, especially among Libertarians.
One is also unable to separate the thought of Adam Smith from American thought. Americans take Smith's ideas for granted. Smith believed that self-interest made men act in ways that benefitted society as a whole; this was his "invisible hand" (Cropsey, 1987,645-646). Cropsey tells us that capitalism for Smith was a moral good, "It is animated by a search for methods of institutionally liberating every man's natural instinct of self-preservation in the interest of external, politically intelligible freedom and peaceful prosperous life for mankind as a whole" (Cropsey, 1987,652). Smith also had a belief in progress. He believed that things are continually getting better (Cropsey, 1987,652). This is another common thread in American thought. Americans tend to be optimistic about the future, and tend to believe that things are getting better. This idea of progress is often associated with the left (i.e. Progressivism).
Although I think that he is the most studied of the four by philosophers today, Hume is the most difficult for me to see in contemporary American political thought. Hill tells us that Thomas Jefferson branded his thought as "Tory" and that he disagreed with Locke on contract theory (Hill 1987, 554-555).
Dent says that Rousseau "...continues to excite great controversy as both a theoretician and a person: as a theoretician because it is possible to see him both as a great liberator of the individual or as the apologist for populist totalitarianism..." (Dent 1995, 780). Rousseau turned Hobbes upon his head, so to speak. For Hobbes, the state of nature was a war among individuals, and government was a remedy. For Rousseau, man in the state of nature was kind and good, the "noble savage." Rousseau's state of nature was a golden age, and civil society brought all of the world's ills to man, including economic inequality. Some of Rousseau's ideas can still be seen in some strands of American thought on the left and the right. He was a philosopher of revolution. He thought that a government's right to rule came from the will of the people, no matter what form of government it was (Bloom 1987, 570). Bloom tells us that laws could be changed to reflect the current will of the people and that this idea undercut the authority of the law (Bloom 1987, 571). I think that there is still a lot of this sentiment in America today, especially in the last 60 years. Rousseau apparently thought that a direct democracy was best, since the people would be constantly involved, and their will would be known. (Bloom 1987, 570). Some people believe that the Internet will allow for direct democracy (Morris 2001, 1034).
Rousseau seems to have believed in what might be called cultural relativism today, "The fact of difference of circumstances means that many nations cannot enjoy liberty and that many others can only have a diluted form of it" (Bloom 1987, 573). This idea is present in some American thought today, especially in the field of Anthropology. Rousseau also thought that "...extremes of wealth and poverty must be prevented" (Bloom 1987, 571). Many people on the left and right worry about this in America; everyone seems to speculate about the possible demise of the middle class. Rousseau also thought that "Society protects the rich more than the poor..." (Bloom 1987, 577). This is also heard constantly as well from both the left, and certain groups on the right. Rousseau also viewed government with suspicion, and as a necessary evil (Bloom 1987, 574). Suspicion of the government tends to be present in the American right.
On the other hand, some of Rousseau's ideas are absent from most strands of American thought, the main one being his dislike of political factions. He thought that political parties should be forbidden (Bloom 1987, 571). America of course has two main parties and a variety of smaller ones, and various interest groups within the two main ones.
Bloom, Allan. "Jean-Jacques Rousseau." In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 559-580. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Cropsey, Joseph. "Adam Smith." In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 635-658. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Dent, Nicholas. "Jean-Jacques Rousseau." In The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich, 780. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Goldwin, Robert A. "John Locke" In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 476-512. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Hill, Robert S. "David Hume." In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 535-558. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Morris, Dick. "Direct Democracy and the Internet." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. Accessed April 28, 2014. 34 (April 2001): 1033-1053. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol34/iss3/5
Updated on
“Whereas the specifics of what is honorable differ with time and place, the very fact that one moral virtue is alluded to in the great literature (for example, Homer’s Iliad) is sufficient for us to note that warfare has been infused with some moral concerns from the beginning rather than war being a mere Macbethian bloodbath” (Moseley n.d.).
Ancient Rome had both success and failure in war and conquering. Rome did not allow its standing army to enter the city of the populous. With the breadth of the Roman Empire, it was necessary to have methods and rules established for war and peace. These rules could not be based on a case by case basis for the reason that everyone’s notion of justification is different.
“The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used” (Moseley n.d.).
The advantages of jus ad bellum are that there are rules to follow, yet there is flexibly enough that rules change with the times and new technological innovations and political structures. An example is how peace agreements were handled to end WWI. At the end of WWI, only some of Unites States President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points were followed. Neglecting to follow some of his suggestions by dividing colonial holdings amongst the victors (rather than allowing them to choose their sovereignty) and by choosing to hold Germany financially accountable for the war set the world up for WWII. The results led to a great depression, leaving the door wide open for movements such as Fascism and Socialism to take root in vulnerable nations. We see in history now, more than ever, that if a leader does not conform to these rules, there is an organization of nations (thank you President Wilson) that will judge and punish them.
The disadvantages to jus ad bellum is that “they invoke a [philosophical] plethora of problems by either their independent vagueness or by mutually inconsistent results – a properly declared war may involve improper intention or disproportionate ambitions” (Moseley n.d.). We see this in the reading this week about the Evangelical extreme right. Everyone’s definition of just cause is going to be different; as is who the proper authority is; and if the end result is relative to the means used.
“The rules of just conduct within war fall under the two broad principles of discrimination and proportionality. The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. A third principle can be added to the traditional two, namely the principle of responsibility, which demands an examination of where responsibility lies in war.” (Moseley n.d.).
No, the relative rightness of one’s cause cannot effect whether the jus in bello rules are followed, because then those with religious reasons, which the of course deem supreme and justified, can hide behind their religion as an excuse for not following the rules. “If we combine his [Alfarabi] teaching about just….war….with the idea of a perfect human association extending over the entire world, we can [conclude]… that Alfarabi deliberately modified the teaching of Plato and Aristotle on an important issue with the intention of supplying a rational justification for Islamic concept of holy war whose aim was to propagate the divine law everywhere on earth…” (Strauss &Cropsey 1987).
References
Moseley, Alexander. Internet Encycolpedia of Philosophy. n.d. /justwar/ (accessed April 15, 2014).
Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed. . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Darlene Smyth (Apr 18, 2014 4:08 PM) - Read by: 4HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Kim,
Glad you were able to finally get it posted. I agree that there are rules of war, but those rules change, based on the time and the war. Guerrilla warfare, first in WWII and then Korea, and Vietnam changed how we fight wars, and how we recognize the combatants from the non-combatants. The Japanese withdrew from the League of Nations, and then did not participate in the Geneva Convention, so they did not have to follow the 'acceptable'' rules of war. By trying to stay within the jus in bello mindset cost us lives in Vietnam. We did not understand that type of war, punji sticks bedded in shallow creek beds, booby-traps, machine guns manned by children, booby traps in wounded and/or dead American soldiers on the field of battle (I was told this by a veteran who witness this), , shelling of hospitals- tactics that the enemy embraced. Since Vietnam we have continued to develop and use covert troops and operations to fight wars. Battles are not always fought on a battlefield.
The philosophers we have studied had no idea of the advancements in war or the politics that control them. Good and just leaders also have to think about being re-elected now.
Darlene Smyth
/battlefieldvietnam/guerrilla/index.html
/motif/society/vietcong-war-tactics-in-vietnam
/boobytraps.htm
/weapons/boobytraps.htm SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Kimberlee Garza (Apr 19, 2014 8:33 AM) - Read by: 3HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
I agree with your statements; my father was in Vietnam for two tours and I wrote a paper on his experiences as one of the first, professional Marines deployed. My grandfather was a Marine serving in the Pacific front in WWII and has recounted the stories of storming beaches. He remembers running alongside one of his friends and from the corner of his eye watching his body take 5 or so strides after his head was blown off.
I also have a great-uncle who was the driver for a General in the Europe and witnessed the horror of the liberated Nazi concentration camps (we have his personal journal). Those personal experiences, of the men on the ground are, I think, the "real" war; void of rules and regulations. Your points about how Vietnam changed the way we fight wars today is exactly what I tell my students.
Your right about Japan as well. Japan was greatly effected by the world wide depression after WWI. One of the reasons they invaded China was because they were seeking land for farming to feed their expanding (and starving) population. SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Thomas Kelly (Apr 19, 2014 2:29 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
When has the evangelical right gone to war? Tom SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza" Re: Religious Theorists - Kim Garza
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Joanne Hopkins-Lucia (Apr 21, 2014 2:18 AM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
So Kim the following is a quote you wrote from Moseley:
“The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used” (Moseley n.d.)
So to comment on this, 'just war', 'the ends excuses any evil?' according to the Greek writer Sophocles. No matter what one must do, no matter the sophisticated war material used, no matter how many are murdered, if the end accomplishes the 'goal' which was the original mark, then the 'ends justify the means'?
Prince Machiavelli's writings on 'Maintaining a Princedom', relates one can be 'other than good...'.
Alfarabi writes about offensive war, to convert all to Islam, if that's what it takes, then so be it? the last part of Moseley saying the end being proportional to the means.
There is a short distance between a morally good end and morally bad end. Morally good depending who is judging, may be considered morally good, but actually is morally bad, and vice versa.
During the Holocaust millions of Jewish people died, for the Nazis this was good, for the rest of the world, is was atrocity!
Therefore, 'just war' basically is known as 'just' to many nations, but to certain, most who do not share the same views, 'just' may mean, atrocities that are waiting to be committed.
Machiavelli: The End Justifies the Means - Public bookshelf /public_htmll/Outline.../machiavelli_bfa.html
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Morality of Human Acts /archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
debate.org
Moseley, Alexander Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. /justwar/
Mahdi, Mushin, 'Alfarabi' History of Political Philosophy, 3rd Edition, Edited by Strauss and Cropsey
Joanne Hopkins-Lucia
#2
The Just War theory is the basis on which nations seek to legally and morally justify going to war. The theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. [1]
The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take and the historical aspect or the Just War tradition deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. [2]
The just war theoretical aspect tradition considers the thoughts of various philosophers and their philosophical visions and contributions that have contributed to the guides of war and warfare. [3]
There are two traditional categories of requirements for Just Wars known as Jus Ad Bellum or the conditions for going to war and Jus in Bello the conditions for behavior during war. [4]
The first condition known as Jus Ad Bellum includes four criteria including Just Authority or a legitimate government, Just Cause which includes having a detailed well explained reason, Just Intentions which states that the actions of war must be in sequence with the explained causes, and Last Resort which states that war is morally permissible only when a nation has exhausted all potential solutions including political and diplomatic. [5]
The second condition known as Jus In Bello provides the standards of conduct for nations, armies, and individual solders at war including the proportionality of force which must be measured against the force required to correct the Just cause, Discrimination which must be utilized to protect the lives of Innocent nonmilitary citizens, and Responsibility which protects warring nations against financial damage as long as the Jus In Bello criteria are met. [6]
This history of the Theory begins with the works of some important biblical scriptures that hint at the ethical behavior in war including the concepts of just cause which typically announces the justice of war by divine intervention. [7]
Throughout history many religious leaders have provided religious foundations in their analysis of warring nations included among these influential leaders are Christian philosophers such as St Augustine who provided comments on the morality of war from the Christian perspective. His theory involved eight principles elements including a punitive conception of war, assessment of the evil of war in terms moral evil of attitudes and desires, a search for authorization for the use of violence, a dualistic epismology which gives priority to spiritual goods, interpretation of evangelical norms in terms of inner attitudes, passive attitudes to authority and social change, use of biblical texts to legitimate participation in war, and an analogical conception of peace. [8]
St Thomas Aquinas who in Summa Theogicas provided written criteria of just war theory whish are the standards utilized by many modern day nations during war.
Al Farabi a Muslim who shared many of the same views as Augustine and Aristotle rejected the idea of warfare for the plunder or enslavement of inhabitants. He did however adopt Aristotle’s view that some people were better suited for servitude including the fact that military offensives were justifiable if the goal was to bring virtue to ignorant people. [9] SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists" Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Thomas Kelly (Apr 19, 2014 2:32 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Having laid out the conditions of a just war, was the US invasion/liberation of Iraq a just war? Did it meet the criteria? Tom SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists" Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Ruth Brown (Apr 19, 2014 5:15 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
In researching the United States War with Iraq it was noted that the invasion/liberation of Iraq did not meet the criteria of a a Just War.
To begin although the United States government was seeking to protect the national security of the country the government had no concrete evidence that could be used a justifiable cause to declare war on Iraq.
The Intentions of war was to end the development of weapons of mass destruction, capture Saddam Hussein, and create a democratic Iraqi government.
The United States government failed in trying to resolved the situation in a diplomatic manner by refusing the negotiation efforts of many of the country's leaders including the United States Allies and the United Nations.
During the war the United States destroyed petroleum fields and key government centers that was home to the countries historical artifacts many of which were stolen by looters. The war also resulted in 7,500 civilian deaths an no capture of Hussein.
SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists"Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Thomas Kelly (Apr 20, 2014 1:15 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Last Edit By Thomas Kelly Apr 20, 2014 01:16 pm President Bush said, HYPERLINK "/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/sou012902.htm""Our cause is just." Didn't leaders of old make the same claims before waging unjust wars? What does that say about the effectiveness or usefulness of JWT? Tom SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists"Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Ruth Brown (Apr 20, 2014 7:47 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Yes they did especially with the Vietnam War I do not understand the country's involvement in the war especially with the problems experienced at home and equally Japan I know the bombing of pearl Harbor was bad but to kill so many innocent people SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT New! HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o " Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists "Re: Brown:The Religious Theorists
HYPERLINK "javascript:;"Michael Nelson (Apr 20, 2014 10:30 PM) - Read by: 2HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "Reply" HYPERLINK "https://edge.apus.edu/portal/tool/dccd3277-8968-4434-a0fd-438e035d0219/discussionForum/message/dfViewThread" \o "\"Reply\" Reply
Ruth,
Your post summarized the theories and topics discussed this week in very concise and easy to read manner. I enjoyed reading it and I have just a few thoughts. Of particular note is the link between the principles of the “just war” and the modern Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Modern LOAC summarized the same principles laid out in this week’s lesson and reading. For St. Augustus, the idea that Christianity and “war” or armed conflict were compatible was of great necessity because the Romans had come to believe that their issues with conquest and military defeat were in fact caused by their “conversion” (and I use that term very loosely) to Christianity as a state. (Fortin 1987, 199). St. Aquinas, like the apostle Paul in Romans 13, asserted that Christianity was not only compatible, but could actually enhance Roman political life while keeping government out of religion and religion out of politics. This principle is stated in our First Amendment (even if there is was a legalistic twisting of this idea in the last century).
The use of force to bring about peace is also stated in the foreign policy of Ronald Regan in his “peace through strength” and the threat of “total mutual annihilation” seen during the Cold War with Russia. Some would argue that peace can only be “negotiated” or brought about through diplomacy. However, history has demonstrated the opposite to be true. And so, both World Wars and the Cold War are modern examples of peace through victory when dealing with oppressive and destructive regimes and its ideas/worldviews. As with the case in the nuclear bombing of Japan, the idea of what exactly is the proper level force used can only be weighed against the consequential military and humanitarian gain. The threat of such force can also be used to maintain the balance of power in a region or in the world at as a whole.
Fortin, Ernest L. "St. Augustine." In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 176-205. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
The thought of Locke and Smith have the strongest presence in America today followed by Rousseau and Hume. Locke and Smith are inseparable from the fabric of America; their ideas permeate the American mind. Rousseau is present to a lesser extent, and often seems to be split among the left and the right. Hume is hidden from view, or at least mine.
Locke's ideas, apparently, affected the Founding Fathers tremendously. He is literally written into American ideology. He believed that men were born free and equal (Goldwin 1987, 477). This is taken as a given for Americans, and many others in the world, today. Locke rooted these freedoms in his state of nature, which was a more peaceful one than that of Hobbes (Goldwin 1987, 478). He believed that men had a duty of self-preservation to themselves, and a duty to preserve mankind in general, the law of nature (Goldwin 1987, 482-483). Locke believed that men moved out of a state of nature into civil society in order to protect property. He believed that God had originally given the world to man in common. Everyone was entitled to take from this universal common. Since each man owned his own labor, what they took became theirs due to the labor that they performed to gather it (Goldwin 1987, 486-487). Due to spoilage, early man could not accumulate wealth, but with the invention of money, man was able to accumulate it. This wealth needed to be protected from others. This need for protection led to the birth of civil society (Goldwin 1987, 489-495). The protection of property rights is a particularly strong strand in American thought, especially among Libertarians.
One is also unable to separate the thought of Adam Smith from American thought. Americans take Smith's ideas for granted. Smith believed that self-interest made men act in ways that benefitted society as a whole; this was his "invisible hand" (Cropsey, 1987,645-646). Cropsey tells us that capitalism for Smith was a moral good, "It is animated by a search for methods of institutionally liberating every man's natural instinct of self-preservation in the interest of external, politically intelligible freedom and peaceful prosperous life for mankind as a whole" (Cropsey, 1987,652). Smith also had a belief in progress. He believed that things are continually getting better (Cropsey, 1987,652). This is another common thread in American thought. Americans tend to be optimistic about the future, and tend to believe that things are getting better. This idea of progress is often associated with the left (i.e. Progressivism).
Although I think that he is the most studied of the four by philosophers today, Hume is the most difficult for me to see in contemporary American political thought. Hill tells us that Thomas Jefferson branded his thought as "Tory" and that he disagreed with Locke on contract theory (Hill 1987, 554-555).
Dent says that Rousseau "...continues to excite great controversy as both a theoretician and a person: as a theoretician because it is possible to see him both as a great liberator of the individual or as the apologist for populist totalitarianism..." (Dent 1995, 780). Rousseau turned Hobbes upon his head, so to speak. For Hobbes, the state of nature was a war among individuals, and government was a remedy. For Rousseau, man in the state of nature was kind and good, the "noble savage." Rousseau's state of nature was a golden age, and civil society brought all of the world's ills to man, including economic inequality. Some of Rousseau's ideas can still be seen in some strands of American thought on the left and the right. He was a philosopher of revolution. He thought that a government's right to rule came from the will of the people, no matter what form of government it was (Bloom 1987, 570). Bloom tells us that laws could be changed to reflect the current will of the people and that this idea undercut the authority of the law (Bloom 1987, 571). I think that there is still a lot of this sentiment in America today, especially in the last 60 years. Rousseau apparently thought that a direct democracy was best, since the people would be constantly involved, and their will would be known. (Bloom 1987, 570). Some people believe that the Internet will allow for direct democracy (Morris 2001, 1034).
Rousseau seems to have believed in what might be called cultural relativism today, "The fact of difference of circumstances means that many nations cannot enjoy liberty and that many others can only have a diluted form of it" (Bloom 1987, 573). This idea is present in some American thought today, especially in the field of Anthropology. Rousseau also thought that "...extremes of wealth and poverty must be prevented" (Bloom 1987, 571). Many people on the left and right worry about this in America; everyone seems to speculate about the possible demise of the middle class. Rousseau also thought that "Society protects the rich more than the poor..." (Bloom 1987, 577). This is also heard constantly as well from both the left, and certain groups on the right. Rousseau also viewed government with suspicion, and as a necessary evil (Bloom 1987, 574). Suspicion of the government tends to be present in the American right.
On the other hand, some of Rousseau's ideas are absent from most strands of American thought, the main one being his dislike of political factions. He thought that political parties should be forbidden (Bloom 1987, 571). America of course has two main parties and a variety of smaller ones, and various interest groups within the two main ones.
Bloom, Allan. "Jean-Jacques Rousseau." In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 559-580. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Cropsey, Joseph. "Adam Smith." In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 635-658. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Dent, Nicholas. "Jean-Jacques Rousseau." In The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, edited by Ted Honderich, 780. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Goldwin, Robert A. "John Locke" In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 476-512. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Hill, Robert S. "David Hume." In History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 535-558. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Morris, Dick. "Direct Democracy and the Internet." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. Accessed April 28, 2014. 34 (April 2001): 1033-1053. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol34/iss3/5
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: