IndexIntroduction: Is War Ever Justified?Just WarReasons for War: Justifiable and Not JustifiableConclusionWorks CitedIntroduction: Is War Ever Justified?War is an inevitable death for humanity. Unlike usual events, war is an action of people imposed on other people. From time to time this bitter and brutal war; it occurred through ethnic tensions between majority and minority, which to this day create enormous difficulties. War usually has a criminal aspect, but can it ever be less criminal? When it comes to “justifiable war” there are several possibilities. Nations around the world propose many solutions, influences and hypotheses. In reality, war is inevitable; can you ever judge it morally justified? Furthermore, the war had unusual impacts on society in several ways; It has positive efforts to create peace and freedom; but also full of many difficulties and effects on the numerous ethnic groups and cultural beliefs. One part of the Pacific world argues not to justify the war, while another claims to support it. All these facts demonstrate a decent habit, inherited by humanity. "War is a tradition." The most unjustifiable value of war is the loss of lives of innocent citizens. Civilians, who might have lived to have a huge effect on the planet, may be in no direct danger to the “enemy” and may not even share the intentions of the side they were allowed to support. War eliminates the hopes and dreams of millions of people, extinguishes homelands, terrorizes and dominates the population. None of this, in the end, brings more corruption than moral effects on society. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayJust WarIf someone influences soldiers to obey orders and behave cruelly in war, a particular party annihilates their natural reflexes of kindness and their ability to think and act freely by producing menial works for the leaders. No one has the right to execute a living individual. War can end the will to live; in those who survive they have been affected, and pretend to kill others who they are forced to kill on purpose. No one can justify and declare the right to govern the feelings and desires of others. It was Aristotle who first introduced the concept of just war, simply and an action that was a last resort and served as the greater good to restore peace to a region. . But as was typical of the time, Aristotle generally had a favorable view of war, and war to “avoid becoming the slave of others” is justified as self-defense. Today we mostly don't have to worry too much about this. However, this concept served to influence the writings of the Roman philosopher Cicero, who in his De Officiis wrote extensively on the topic of the right to go to war. In it he states that the decision as to whether or not it was “right” to go to war was decided by the priests. Of course, this ritual was later adopted by Christians, and for the next several hundred years the rational "because God said" served as a good general reason for why the war was worth fighting. It was only when St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known theorist, set out the conditions under which war could be justified, combining the theological principles of faith with the philosophical principles of reason. (Rickaby, 1892) It was these conditions that laid the foundation for the principles of jus ad bellum, from the Latin "right to war". and unjustifiable War is usually a huge economic hole into which theresources and manpower of a country. It often forces civilians to work hard without giving them any direct reward. Many countries spend excessively on manpower and resources to meet ongoing war needs, depriving their populations of other necessities. This economic deprivation can take years to recover from. If the outcome of the war brings more good than harm, the war may be justified; even if the real reason for the war is not morally acceptable. Anything that improves the quality of life of the majority on a global scale is acceptable. If the evils against which a war is fought, such as racism or terrorism, are universally immoral, war is also acceptable. Going to war to protect the innocent and persecuted or to gain freedom and human rights is acceptable because no one should be denied these basic privileges. As long as a war does not hurt innocents and denies others these rights, then it should continue and make life worth living for the persecuted people. Wars fought to stop the advance of a morally corrupt power are justifiable, because they destroy an evil that would cause suffering to a greater number of people in the long term. You cannot argue against war in self-defense, otherwise you will be vulnerable. Finally, going to war as an ally is justifiable because of the basic decency of helping and being loyal to those who return support. But this happens only when a neighbor's reasons for going to war are acceptable and its purpose is moral. However, it is controversial whether countries against which a war is not directed should join that war: they often make the situation worse by interfering. Debating whether or not to go to war in defense of a neighbor presents a “right versus right.” dilemma.' There are two contrasting morals: loyalty (to one's neighbor) versus justice (if the reasons for going to war are unjust) or loyalty versus nonviolence. To decide whether war can be justified, not only in the previous case, but in general, we can be guided by ethical theories. Utilitarianism is a principle that 'doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people' is the best action. When applying the “can war be justified” problem, it is necessary to look ahead to see what the consequences of a war will be – whether the war will have a greater overall benefit, thinking about future generations. This rule will give a different answer to each case: if the outcome of a war will cause more suffering than good, utilitarianism would say that that war could not be justified; however, if a war, in the long run, would do more good than harm, utilitarian thinkers would say that war can be justified. The “rules-based” principle advises people to think “if everyone in the world followed the same rules of action 'I'm going to follow, would the world be a nice place to live in?' Applied to this problem, you would think about whether the world would be a nice place if everyone was at war or if no one was at war. Of course, living in a place where everyone is at war would be terrible, so a rules-based thinker would say that war cannot be justified. “Care-based” thinking says that the most loving and caring action is the best. Since no violence is caring or loving, care-based thinkers would say that war cannot be justified under any circumstances. This principle also includes the "reversibility rule," which tells people to imagine how they would feel if the action they want to take was undone and done to them instead. Since no one wants a war to be waged against them, this also concludes that going to war is unfair. Conclusion It's difficult.