Yumi Anggraini
Mr. Pangier
English Literature 2nd Block
5th April 2016
Should war be justified?
Widespread and long-term peace for everyone are in technicality, not humanly possible. Humans are functioned in a way that we are never fully satisfied with what we have. However, it is necessary that we always aim to find peace. I say that peace is equal to happiness, and it is true that everyone cannot be happy. Unless we as a species can try to attain a sense of togetherness. The Just War theory was developed when war meant hand-to-hand combat, arrows, stone-flinging. Killing hundreds, and maybe thousands. It is now a different time, we need a different concept. Our technology has made us all scared. The whole Earth could be wiped off the face of the planet if world war three commences. We live in an era where everything is still uncertain, should we follow society’s morals, or should we defend ourselves? To many, “just war” sounds like an oxymoron. Can war be justified? Should war ever be justified? Does peace mean that we have to avoid all violence necessary? While it is true that war should never be justified, however, we have a right to defend ourselves against violent attacks. There are certain times when a war would be the better option, “Just War” thinking should change. Policy makers should think and give a clearer guidance on HOW to respond to aggression rather than saying “oh well” and dropping nuclear bombs on everybody. In its stricter form of theory, Just War provides guidance on two issues which essentially can cover up the basic parts to the justification for war. Under what conditions is it morally right to engage in war and how can our morals still be applied in the violence of war.
Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, prejudice, jealousy, and other negative emotions can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained. Implied by the theory, waging a war for domination or control, increase of territory, or even to gain mineral resources is forbidden. The Just War theory holds that a country can only go to war only in response to a force to be reckoned with for a "just cause," with violence used after all other non-military options have been tried and considered, as a last resort. The nation that decides to engage in war must participate with "good intentions" and bringing a "good outcome." With civilian protection as the top most important, and the proportional aspect of having the level of violence and casualties suffered. The military tactics must use only a limited amount of force which is necessary.
Rules of conduct in Just War theory falls under broad principles of discrimination, proportionality, and responsibility. Discrimination concerned who are the real "enemies" in war while proportionality concerns on how much force is morally appropriate. The rules of just conduct fall under the two broad principles of discrimination and proportionality. The principle of discrimination concerns who is legitimate targets in war. Responsibility, however, demands an examination of where responsibility lies in the war. The act of war must stick within combatants only, not towards the civilians who were caught in situations they did not create. This prohibits bombing civilian residence areas, terrorism, attacking neutral targets. Moreover, it is logical but soldiers are forbidden to attack those who have surrendered, captured, injured and such. Many war novel, such as the famous one, "All Quiet on The Western Front," tells stories of individual people with existing lives and loved ones, which ultimately is essential for people to read, and gain more insight on what is really going on behind the trenches. The use of authority to do evil, terrors of war, and eventually the mental health of those who lived. When you are on a battlefield, one would "lose all sense of other considerations" (Remarque, 23) as to survive and deal with his hardships of war. These are “Real people are made out of a whole lot of things—flesh, bone, blood, nerves, stuff like that." (Foster) And it is sensible, that one could turn against the Just War Theory in wild conditions. Of course, we must always promote the principality of "JUST." "Here, on the borders of death, life follows an amazingly simple course, it is limited to what is most necessary; all else lies in buried sleep:- in that besides our primitiveness and our survival." (Remarque, 273) Whether it be killing to not be killed, or feeling the remorse afterwards.
Warfare sometimes unavoidably involves civilians. Whilst the principle of Just War argues for their immunity from war, the practicalities of war provokes the need for a different paradigm. The doctrine of double effect offers a justification for killing civilians in war, so long as their deaths are not intended but are accidental. Those who have not experienced war before has "an ideal and almost character" (Remarque, 21) of war. War is real, people's lives are ruined because of a mass murder that is usually due to dumb authority figures fighting over power. All the same, war can be justified. It seems to me that more and more people in our society believe that war is never justified. I think this is a naive view. Like John Stuart Mill said, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." As a student of history, it is apparent to me that there have been leaders and rulers in history who were simply evil and there are causes that are simply right. Slavery in the United States was wrong, and it is too bad that the country had to suffer terribly from the Civil War, but if that is what it took to end slavery, that is what it took. Adolf Hitler was evil. He killed millions of people for nothing but their race, their beliefs. Neville Chamberlain tried negotiation with him, but Hitler broke the pact as soon as it was convenient. Evil people do not keep their promises. They say one thing and do another. How can we negotiate or compromise with someone who does not keep their word?
There are still some things worth dying for and things like the freedom to worship as we choose, the right to a fair trial before imprisonment, the right of people to live in safety without constant fear, the right of women to be treated as humans, not animals. These are things worth fighting and even dying for.
(1212 words)
WORKS CITED
Remarque, Erich Maria, and A. W. Wheen. All Quiet on the Western Front. Print.
"John Stuart Mill." - Wikiquote. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
Foster, Thomas C. How to Read Literature like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to Reading between the Lines. New York: Quill, 2003. Print.
Mr. Pangier
English Literature 2nd Block
5th April 2016
Should war be justified?
Widespread and long-term peace for everyone are in technicality, not humanly possible. Humans are functioned in a way that we are never fully satisfied with what we have. However, it is necessary that we always aim to find peace. I say that peace is equal to happiness, and it is true that everyone cannot be happy. Unless we as a species can try to attain a sense of togetherness. The Just War theory was developed when war meant hand-to-hand combat, arrows, stone-flinging. Killing hundreds, and maybe thousands. It is now a different time, we need a different concept. Our technology has made us all scared. The whole Earth could be wiped off the face of the planet if world war three commences. We live in an era where everything is still uncertain, should we follow society’s morals, or should we defend ourselves? To many, “just war” sounds like an oxymoron. Can war be justified? Should war ever be justified? Does peace mean that we have to avoid all violence necessary? While it is true that war should never be justified, however, we have a right to defend ourselves against violent attacks. There are certain times when a war would be the better option, “Just War” thinking should change. Policy makers should think and give a clearer guidance on HOW to respond to aggression rather than saying “oh well” and dropping nuclear bombs on everybody. In its stricter form of theory, Just War provides guidance on two issues which essentially can cover up the basic parts to the justification for war. Under what conditions is it morally right to engage in war and how can our morals still be applied in the violence of war.
Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, prejudice, jealousy, and other negative emotions can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained. Implied by the theory, waging a war for domination or control, increase of territory, or even to gain mineral resources is forbidden. The Just War theory holds that a country can only go to war only in response to a force to be reckoned with for a "just cause," with violence used after all other non-military options have been tried and considered, as a last resort. The nation that decides to engage in war must participate with "good intentions" and bringing a "good outcome." With civilian protection as the top most important, and the proportional aspect of having the level of violence and casualties suffered. The military tactics must use only a limited amount of force which is necessary.
Rules of conduct in Just War theory falls under broad principles of discrimination, proportionality, and responsibility. Discrimination concerned who are the real "enemies" in war while proportionality concerns on how much force is morally appropriate. The rules of just conduct fall under the two broad principles of discrimination and proportionality. The principle of discrimination concerns who is legitimate targets in war. Responsibility, however, demands an examination of where responsibility lies in the war. The act of war must stick within combatants only, not towards the civilians who were caught in situations they did not create. This prohibits bombing civilian residence areas, terrorism, attacking neutral targets. Moreover, it is logical but soldiers are forbidden to attack those who have surrendered, captured, injured and such. Many war novel, such as the famous one, "All Quiet on The Western Front," tells stories of individual people with existing lives and loved ones, which ultimately is essential for people to read, and gain more insight on what is really going on behind the trenches. The use of authority to do evil, terrors of war, and eventually the mental health of those who lived. When you are on a battlefield, one would "lose all sense of other considerations" (Remarque, 23) as to survive and deal with his hardships of war. These are “Real people are made out of a whole lot of things—flesh, bone, blood, nerves, stuff like that." (Foster) And it is sensible, that one could turn against the Just War Theory in wild conditions. Of course, we must always promote the principality of "JUST." "Here, on the borders of death, life follows an amazingly simple course, it is limited to what is most necessary; all else lies in buried sleep:- in that besides our primitiveness and our survival." (Remarque, 273) Whether it be killing to not be killed, or feeling the remorse afterwards.
Warfare sometimes unavoidably involves civilians. Whilst the principle of Just War argues for their immunity from war, the practicalities of war provokes the need for a different paradigm. The doctrine of double effect offers a justification for killing civilians in war, so long as their deaths are not intended but are accidental. Those who have not experienced war before has "an ideal and almost character" (Remarque, 21) of war. War is real, people's lives are ruined because of a mass murder that is usually due to dumb authority figures fighting over power. All the same, war can be justified. It seems to me that more and more people in our society believe that war is never justified. I think this is a naive view. Like John Stuart Mill said, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." As a student of history, it is apparent to me that there have been leaders and rulers in history who were simply evil and there are causes that are simply right. Slavery in the United States was wrong, and it is too bad that the country had to suffer terribly from the Civil War, but if that is what it took to end slavery, that is what it took. Adolf Hitler was evil. He killed millions of people for nothing but their race, their beliefs. Neville Chamberlain tried negotiation with him, but Hitler broke the pact as soon as it was convenient. Evil people do not keep their promises. They say one thing and do another. How can we negotiate or compromise with someone who does not keep their word?
There are still some things worth dying for and things like the freedom to worship as we choose, the right to a fair trial before imprisonment, the right of people to live in safety without constant fear, the right of women to be treated as humans, not animals. These are things worth fighting and even dying for.
(1212 words)
WORKS CITED
Remarque, Erich Maria, and A. W. Wheen. All Quiet on the Western Front. Print.
"John Stuart Mill." - Wikiquote. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
Foster, Thomas C. How to Read Literature like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to Reading between the Lines. New York: Quill, 2003. Print.