Just War Theory and Pacifism
This paper seeks to establish a working description of pacifism. Then, it gives a short description of the just war tradition. In addition, it compares and contrasts the principles of just war theory and pacifism in conflict resolution. In the end, it shows that pacifism is preferable to just war, both in the outcome and in principles.
The definition of pacifism relates to the dispute within and between states. Pacifists believe that even defense of self or others are not justification for war (Charles, 2009). However, in this case, we cannot question the right of people to defend themselves and those close to them against threats. The problem here is the application of force by states during a conflict. It is argued that we must reject the idea that pacifism is an entirely rejection of violence. Arguably, the very word "pacifism" has been coined to denote anti-war-ism. Therefore, the useful word holds relatively precise definition that it is appropriate not to abolish or blur. Moreover, the individuals currently defined, as pacifists are by no means dedicated to a decline of every possible type of violence (Cahill, 1992).
Contrary, the just war theory attempts to control war to render it less devastating. Nevertheless, even in a just war, the cost involved to attain the required end is normally extraordinarily high. The safeguarding of ideas, political systems, and people is a noble cause and can be achieved without war. Even in controlling violence, there is nothing like war without a price. The most devastating and most obvious price is the loss of life. Other prices include political, economic and environmental collapse. Altogether, pacifism rejects war as it promotes alternative approaches to addressing interstate disputes (Trzyna & Kauffman, 2006).
As seen from the just war theory, states can respond like individuals when they are attacked (Johnson, 2014). This means they could practice their right to self-defense by fighting back. The theory posits just reasons for entering into war, just approaches of fighting the war and just methods of ending the war. Nevertheless, these practices may lead to a bigger problem than the one being addressed: the continuation of war as an approved approach to dispute resolution. The approval of war as an appropriate evil appears in different levels. There exist subscribers to the just war theory and the just war theorists. Some realists find it needless in trying to make war moral or just. While they have differing views about the approach to the issue of warfare, in the end, both teams agree that war is unavoidable. The just war theory holds that there may be a morally sound or just war. For morality to control war in some manner, "jus in bello" and "jus ad bellum" norms must exist. This means that there must be justice during a war and vice versa (Trzyna & Kauffman, 2006). These phrases lead to deep issues. Jus ad bellum demands that people must make judgments regarding self-defense and aggression. In contrast, "jus in bello" means that people must make decisions regarding violation or observance of the positive and customary rules of engagement. The just war tradition applies these norms to provide wars of warfare and regulate war.
The just war theory is being shaped by the American way of war in the 20th century. When Americans enter into war, the aim is to defeat evil. The undoing of evil justifies the war, grounded on the Augustinian theory (Cahill, 1992). This has been the historical inspiration for people in the U.S. to murder one another and others since the U.S. revolution. The early ancestors went into war for limited and particular goals and conducted a war in a manner that would not shred the social structure. This principle led to self-imposed barriers both in the application of violence and resorted to violence. Concurrently, U.S. leaders consider war as an instrument of State Policy. The intersection of these two themes defines the evolution of U.S. approach to war during the...
Furthermore, when groups began people naturally turned to the group leader for direction and advice. It would be accurate to state that most of the relating was to the group leader at that point. However, by exercising linking behavior, I was able to get the group members to look to each other for understanding and help. Initially, I had to point out when people were saying things that would indicate
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now