Assignment Flashcards
Impact Statement
In this assignment I will be discussing the subject ‘Is war ever morally justifiable?’. War is defined as an organised conflict between nations or groups and is one of the most destructive forces in human history. War destroys families, displaces millions and leaves survivors battling with trauma for generations. While some argue that war is morally justifiable in cases of self defence or terrorism the toll it takes is immense. As of 2022, 42 countries have been involved in war, that’s 21.76% of the world. Think of the amount of casualties that have occurred, the people that lost husbands, sons, fathers, mothers, sisters, aunties. On the flip side however, advancements have been made from war such as developments of life saving medical techniques like antibiotics, the invention of the internet, and advancements in technology that have shaped modern society.
Self Defence Introduction (definition)
My first argument in favour of war is self defence. Self defence is the act of protecting oneself or one’s interests from harm or threat. This may be through the use of force if necessary. Self defence is a common moral justification for going to war. If a nation is attacked or threatened with attack, it may be justified in using military force to protect itself.
Self defence example
For example, the United States’ entry into World War II was prompted by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
Self defence source
The principle of self defence is supported by international law, as outlined in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Article 51 states
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”
Self defence strength
A strength of the self defence argument is that it provides nations with a legal and moral justification to protect their people from harm. When a country is under attack, defending itself can prevent further destruction and loss of life ensuring the safety of its people.
Self defence evaluation
In my opinion, self defence is a strong and valid moral argument for going to war because every nation has the right to protect its people when under attack however, I also think it’s important that this moral justification is used carefully and not as an excuse for unnecessary violence or aggression.
Alliances introduction
Another argument for war is the forming of alliances between countries. Alliances between countries are often seen as a justifiable reason for going to war as they involve honouring commitments to support one another in times of crisis
Alliances source
Keir Starmer emphasised this when he assured Ukraine of the UK’s long term support stating
“We are with you not just today, for this year or the next - but for 100 years - long after this terrible war is over and Ukraine is free and thriving once again,” he told Zelensky in Kyiv.
Alliances strength
A strength of forming alliances to go to war is that it creates a united front, making it harder for aggressors to target individual nations
Alliances weakness
However, a weakness is that alliances can drag countries into conflicts they might otherwise avoid, even when it’s not in their best interest, as seen in World War I
Alliances evaluation
In my opinion, forming alliances is a justifiable reason for going to war because it shows loyalty and solidarity between nations especially when smaller countries need support against stronger aggressors
Terrorism introduction
My next argument in favour of war is terrorism. This is often used to justify military action against non-state actors, such as terrorist organisations
Terrorism example
For example, the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was prompted by the September 11th attacks in New York, which were carried out by the terrorist group Al-Qaeda.
Terrorism weakness
A weakness of using terrorism as a justification for war is that it can be difficult to distinguish between acts of self-defence and acts of terrorism. For some groups violent actions may be seen as a fight for freedom or survival, while others may view the same actions as terrorism
Terrorism source
As the saying goes
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”
showing how perspective influences how such actions are viewed
Terrorism source analysis
This idea can lead to confusion and even justify violence on both sides making it harder to determine what actions are justifiable in the context of war.
Loss of life introduction
One of the strongest arguments against war is the loss of life it causes affecting both soldiers and innocent civilians. Even with temporary breaks, conflict continues to take a devastating toll.
Loss of life source
As reported by The Guardian
“Although the number of conflict fatalities fell last year… there were still 122,000 conflict-related deaths in 2023.
These numbers highlight the scale of human suffering caused by war making it difficult to morally justify it as a solution to conflict
Loss of life Christian source
Christianity has mixed views on war with some believing violence is never acceptable, like Jesus says in the New Testament “You live by the sword, you die by the sword”
Loss of life Christian source analysis
Many Christian’s believe this as a call for peace, believing that war and violence only lead to more suffering rather than peace. This ties into the argument against war by reinforcing the idea that taking lives in conflict is not morally justifiable as it contradicts Christian teachings on peace, forgiveness, and the sanctity of life
Loss of way of life introduction
My next argument against war is loss of way of life. War often destroys not just lives but entire ways of living forcing millions into poverty and displacement
Loss of way of life source
“War for most civilians today is experienced as a socio-economic disaster. The most fundamental feature of civilian experience in 21st century wars is displacement and impoverishment.”
Loss of way of life source analysis
This is evident in the ongoing Syrian crisis, where UNHCRreports that over 12 million Syrians remain forcibly displaced
Loss of way of life strength
A strength of this argument is that it highlights the long term consequences of war showing that its impact extends far beyond the battlefield. Even after conflicts end millions are left displaced, struggling with poverty and the loss of their homes, culture, and sense of security
Loss of way of life evaluation
I agree with this because the devastating impact of war on civilians often lasts much longer than the war itself, the displacement and poverty faced by millions can take generations to recover from
Unethical war introduction
My last argument against war is unethical war. In Thomas Aquinas’ “Just War” theory he argues that for a war to be just it must meet certain ethical criteria including a just cause, right intention and proportionality
Unethical war source
He states
“It is the intention of the lawgiver that the war should be just, that the injury should be reparable, and that the war should be in accordance with the dictates of reason.”
Unethical war source analysis
This highlights the importance of ensuring that wars are fought for the right reasons and with respect for human life. This shows that war can only be morally justifiable if this criteria is met.
Unethical war weakness
A weakness of the Just War Theory is the idea of what is “just” can be highly subjective. Different nations and leaders may interpret justice in ways that suit their own morals making it difficult to establish a moral standard for war
Conclusion
In conclusion, war is a complex issue with strong arguments both for and against its moral justification. While self defence, alliances and the fight against terrorism can make war seem justifiable the loss of life, displacement and ethical concerns can often outweigh these justifications. Overall I think, while war may sometimes be justified it should always be the last resort as it’s costs are too great to ignore.
