What justifies war?

[gnr2]

I have recently read Walzers book "Just and Unjust Wars" and am currently studying the Just War Theory- it is basically totaly inaccessible to most people, unfourtunately including myself, and i was wondering what everyone thought....

[gmc]

Have a look at the history of some of the religious wars fought in europe for real confusion. Both sides were "just" and fought in the name of religon. It's when religon and ecomomics get mixed in that things get really vicious. You can also find an economic reason behind most wars as well if you look hard enough, struggles for power dressed up in the morality of the day with the justification being used to persuade people to fight for a cause.

Or how about your own civil war (Iassume you are american) was that a just war or were the reasons economic or was it a mixture of both. Both sides believed in the justice of their cause, who was right, were the protagonists manipulated. What is it that makes men stand up facing each other with muskets and kill or be killed.

In older times things were simpler it was tribe against tribe in a brutal battle for survival, were those wars just, what made one more warlike than another? Or consider just flat out empire building, you can see what the rulers got out of it, but what made the ordinary soldier fight? Plunder yes but where there was no plunder to gain.

Had a look for the book you mentioned this was one of the links.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_justwar.html

from the article
We need to look carefully at the kinds of war being fought today, especially with the development of new and more sinister technological weaponry. We need to ask who decides on whether war is declared - and why? Ordinary people don’t get asked whether they think a war is just - they get told by a so-called ‘legitimate’ authority. The notion of ‘just’ implies a sense of justice. Can we have a full sense of justice where killing is involved? Conflict resolution means expanding justice through achieving a situation in which all parties can speak of their needs and values together. Gandhi maintained that nonviolent campaigns are an effort to find the truth of the situation through struggle. The truth of the situation entails the justice of the situation.

Have a gander at these, only comment i would make is who decides when war is just? Be wary of people who have the answers.

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/toffler.html

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/i...2&art_id=10145

[gnr2]

Im not actually american, im english but am studying in scotland. I think that perhaps the problem lies in who legitimises war. Prior to the creation of the UN it was the soverign, be that an elected body or monarch, the insitution that held sovereign authority as laid down in a consitution, had the right to declare war and through this very act it was just- or was it?? This is the problem for me- simply becuase an act is legal it does not make it just, does it?

Prior to 1947 a soverign declaring war made it legal, or perhaps due to the lack of internaitonal law not legal but accepted by the internaitonal commuinity given the norms by which such a community, if in fact one existed, is "governed". However, what makes war acceptable now- clearly a soverign authority cannot just declare war on another state and that action be condoned or accepted- the Iraq war is a prime example, fifty years ago this action would have been acceptable, perhaps even twety years ago, however, now it causes an uproar because a significant number of people believe that the American executive does not have the right to make war and this action to be legitimate or justified. The internaitonal community must sanction the declaration of war in order for it to be accepted as "LEGAL" (in the sense that as 100 years ago it was acceptable for Russia to declare war on Japan, not legal as such but acceptable). So, essentially i want to know, how is a war legtitimate, acceptable and perhaps even "legal" and if these criteria are met is it infact "just"??

My personal standpoint is that if pro-war individuals (as i was) view the Iraq war in this context their postion becomes increasingly untenable.

[Jack Sprat]

There is NO justification for war or for hurting another person, and with today's production technology little justification for harming animals except as food (obviously I'm not a vegetarian, although I eat much less meat than I used to).

One false "justification" for war is a failure on one or more sides to face reality and honestly admit what they really want. Conflicts, be they within a family, between families, among nations, or at any level, have underlying causes. The conflict may have started because one or both sides refuse to look realistically at the issues and are unwilling to see the other side's point of view.

Another "justification" is because one side wishes to impose values on other people. This is often the excuse given by religious groups.

A third "justification" for war is to gain material value: usually or minerals.

Another cause is the desire for individual or nationalistic power.

Can any of these truly be justified? Perhaps the group that wishes to start a conflict can rationalize them, but never are they truly justified.

[gnr2]

What about war to remove Hitler or other genocidal state leaders from power?

[Jack Sprat]

Originally Posted by gnr2

What about war to remove Hitler or other genocidal state leaders from power?

No, I am sorry. And I have a Jewish heritage with strong feelings about the German National Socialistic movement. Once you say that war is an acceptable reason for the removal of any state leader then the forceful removal of all national leaders becomes excusable. Who is qualified to determine the person or persons responsible for the genocide? How many people in the Middle East (and in the United States) feel that George W. Bush should be forcefully removed because of the deaths his actions have caused in Iraq?

How frequently does the person/people actually responsible for the genocide die in a war? Most of the deaths are from "innocent" bystanders and those who feel obliged or who are forced to fight for the beliefs of one side or the other. Does any war for any reason justify the deaths, disabilities, destruction of property caused? Consider the additional side affects: property, food supplies, pollution of drinking water, and destruction of animal habitat....

I may be a minority but firmly believe that no war is justifiable.

[koan]

The Hitler/Bush question does give me pause.

The only defense, in my mind, for killing is self-defense and then only if the attack will not stop short of death. Then can we consider ourselves "good" people if we say "Well, he's not trying to kill me so it's not my problem." If someone asks for help, do we say no? What if they are unable to ask for help? But then, are we declaring war or are we merely defending against the war actions of another?

What is a non-violent defense against an individual or state that does take war action? When do we consider it self defense and when does the retaliation become warful action on behalf of the defenders?

I am not a supporter of war. But I am a supporter of self defense. I kinda think if Bush wants to "help" Iraq he should go there himself along with anyone else who wishes to help and ask them if they need assistance. If someone shoots at him. Shoot back. Just make sure his aim is true.

[gmc]

posted by gnr2
So, essentially i want to know, how is a war legtitimate, acceptable and perhaps even "legal" and if these criteria are met is it infact "just"??

look at it this way, under what circumstances would you be prepared tp go to war yourself, i.e. put yourself in harms way for the defence of your country?

WW1 all sides thought their side was just, ww2 the same liebensrum was a just cause to those involved nazis or not and many were happy to go along with it. so were the british wars of empire legitimate and justified to many at the time, its only in retrospect we judge them as wrong.

Both sides in iraq think their cause is just. The terrorists thought their cause was just and the means justified, GW thinks his cause is just and the means justified. Actually i don't think the terrorists are right or just but you could level the same charge at the western powers to some degree as well. a hundred years from now you might be able to look back and come to some concluscion.

I think it's something each generation has to work out for itself.