Essay on Just War
The concept of the “Just War” is controversial. On the one hand, the war implies injustice, because parties involved in the war use extreme violence and often military actions result in casualties among civilians. On the other hand, the concept of just war implies that the war may start for a good reason, which is morally justifiable, that makes the war just. For instance, the prevention of genocide is a morally reasonable cause to launch the war and such war may be viewed as just. Hence, the war can be justified if the war has good intentions or matches existing moral or ethical rules (McMahan, 2013). However, such a view on the concept of just war stands on the deontological ground because it pursues the idea that the war may be just if it adheres to existing moral norms and rules, including the possible protection of human rights, response to aggression and other issues. Alternatively there are other views on the concept of just war which have a different theoretical background. For instance, the utilitarian theory views the just war as the war that pursues the common good, while the egoist theory implies that the just war pursues individual needs of certain countries. Therefore, the concept of just war may be viewed from different perspective but the problem is that there is no universal explanation of this concept that could offer a plausible explanation of the concept of the just war without the risk of confronting severe and just criticism.
Many proponents of the concept of just war (McMahan, 2013), including those, who stand on the deontological ground, insist that the war is just, when it is conducted in accordance to moral norms and standards that imply the protection of human rights as one of major duties of the civil society. For instance, the war may be just when it protects the population of a country from the violation of their basic human rights by an authoritarian government or when the army of one country is used to conduct the genocide of an ethnic group.
However, the borderline between the just war and unjust war is very fragile, because the use of military forces leads to casualties, destructions, or even crimes against humanity. In such a situation, the question concerning the boundary of the just war rises. In case of the just war from the deonotological perspective the major question that arises is how to keep all actions of the military during the war morally correct. For instance, if the military operation conducted to prevent the genocide results in the death of civilians because of the erroneous targeting of an airstrike, then such action is morally wrong that means the this part of the military operation is morally wrong and unjust. However, if a part of the war is unjust, can the entire war be just then? Such problems may arise among all parties involved in the war. Consequently, the practical application of the concept of just war is very difficult and just war is rather hypothetical or abstract concept that does not exist in the real life.
Furthermore, the concept of just war may not always be applicable because totally different cultures have different moral norms and values (Mosser, 2013). Therefore, one culture may perceive actions of a party in the war as just, whereas another party may perceive those actions as unjust that makes the war unjust. In such a way, the development of the concept of the just war is possible only on the condition of the elaboration of universal cultural norms and values which allow assessing actions of parties involved in the war to determine whether the war is just or not, but, in the real world, such agreement between representatives of different cultures is virtually impossible.
Alternatively, the concept of the just war may be viewed from the utilitarian perspective. In such a context, the war may be viewed as just, if it matches the principle of utility. To put it more precisely, the war may be just, if it pursues interests of the majority and serves to the common good. For instance, if an ethnic minority rebels and the government uses the army to suppress the rebellion, the government serves to the interests of the majority and the fast suppression of the rebellion is good and justifiable because this will minimize casualties, before the conflict becomes large scale. However, such a view on the just war disregards interests and rights of individuals. In other words, the majority turns out to be always right and any crimes against humanity that may be committed in the course of the war are justifiable and morally correct as long as they serve to the common good, according to the utilitarian perspective.
Furthermore, the concept of just war may be viewed from the standpoint of egoism which put interests of the self and its needs above all. In case of the just war, this means that the war may be just, if it serves to the interests of the self (Guthrie & Quinlan, 2007). The self may be viewed not only at the individual but also collective level. Countries may pursue its national interests, while starting a war. For instance, a country may launch a war to gain control over resources vitally important for the survival of the population of the country. Such war may be just from the egoist perspective (Crawford, 2003). However, there is still the question concerning the moral justifiability of such actions. For instance, the war for resources may be important but probably there are other options to meet national interests and the population of the country. For instance, the introduction of innovations can minimize the consumption of resources that will make the war unnecessary. In fact, the main drawback of the egoist view on the concept of just war is the disrespect to needs and interests of others. Egoism admits the possibility of the war on any reason as long as the war meets needs of certain country that launches the war (Mosser, 2013). However, such policy and justification of the war may result in extremely aggressive policies conducted by the government of a country. In such a situation, the government just has to find a plausible pretext for the war to make it just. The government just needs to find the reason for the war that will show that the country does need the war, while the refusal from the war will have devastating effects and will be harmful for the population of the country.
Thus, the concept of just war is very controversial and the borderline between the just and unjust war is fragile and not always evident. Hypothetically, the deontological theory can justify the war, if the war is conducted in accordance to moral norms and rules, i.e. when actions of parties involved in the war match those moral norms and standards. However, such cases are exceptional since even if the reason for the war and goals parties pursue in the war may be fair and just, but means with the parties use are often unjust and contradict to moral norms and principles. Similarly, the utilitarian theory also fails to provide the plausible explanation of the concept of the just war. The utilitarian theory develops the concept of the just war based on the principle of utility that makes the war just as long as it serves to the common good, but this theory disrespects interests and rights of individuals to the extent that their rights may be absolutely neglected but the war will remain just because it serves to the common good. Finally, the egoist theory makes the war just as long as it serves to individualistic needs and interests, but this theory fails to respect needs of others that also makes the egoist concept of the just war morally questionable.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...