Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Is the war on terrorsim just Essay

In this paper I argue that war against terrorism is no just but some war can be just as long as it follows the theory of a just war. As old as early civilizations, war played a significant role in the political stability and security of the society. It has been a central feature of civilisation throughout recorded time. (Evans, 1). Although war is seen as violent and morally destructive, still it was considered as an effective way of defending and even promoting civilization. It was also used by the major religions of this world such as Islam and Christianity to spread their faith. In every war, we can’t deny the fact that there is a political motive behind the heroic reason of its leaders. Being evil by nature, there are a lot of arguments regarding the moral aspect of war. According to La Vitta Cattolica, the debate is whether the nature of traditional war is still applicable with the modern one. Their stand is it is still the same when it comes to the extent of its fatality. They described it as a lethal contest, fed by hatred, physical violence is unleashed in all its brutality. (Elshtain, 108). Is war really for the benefit of people or is just another way of exploiting humanity? There is also a question regarding the extent of its necessity. Nowadays, there are standards to fulfil if a country wants to engage in war. Although a term such as just war was derived from this war controversy, still justice is still a question. It is because the provisions of this just war theory is not fulfilled. Until now, we can say that there is no such war in our history that fulfilled those provisions. Meanwhile, war is also in the history of Christian church. When we look at the teachings of Christianity, we can say that it is against the ideas of Jesus Christ. As we read the gospel, it was clearly imposed by Christ that each of us should love one another even our enemy. As a matter of fact, Nicolas I said that was is always satanic to its origin. (Elshtain, 113). Even Christ himself set an example of being a promoter of peace. But later on, the said faith needs to adapt to the changing world and the result is the use of war to defend the faith. During the 4th and 5th century, Christians were obliged to do military service. This policy was change during the middle ages but later on, the Church became involved with crusades. (Elshtain, 113). Here we can see that war is really inevitable. Although war is inevitable, still a nation or state should do alterative ways to defend themselves. Even if the motive of engaging in war is good the casualties that it will cause to humanity is great. In previous wars, a lot of innocent lives were brutality killed. It will be reasonable if those people were oppressors or enemy of the states but those people were ordinary citizens that needs to be protected. As said by Thucydides, â€Å"The strong do as they can while the weak suffer for what they must† (Chomsky, 1). It is the strong forces church as political and military forces who initiated the war but sadly, the civilians who have nothing to do with their decisions suffer from its consequences. As a state it is the responsibility of the government to promote the welfare of its people by letting them experience political security. One way of ensuring political security is through defending a state from foreign invaders. But it doesn’t mean that war is the only option to defend one state. For me, war should be the last option of the state and apart from selfish political reason; the welfare of the people should be the main motive. When it comes to war against terrorism, I believe that it is not just because it doesn’t apply to just war theory. What is a just war? In a traditional sense, it denotes a specific body of moral doctrine found in Christianity. (Evans, 2). It means that the faith that promotes peace love for enemies also adopted the use of war to secure the faith. In modern times, a just war means following certain ethical consideration before engaging in a war. In other words, actions are evaluated in terms of range of the likely consequence. (Chomsky, 7). It means that a just war should create a lesser physical and moral damage. It also means that engaging in a just war is like choosing the lesser evil. â€Å" †¦though within war there may be many acts of heroism, just war theory cannot then, be said to glorify war or be blind of its moral horrors. † (Evans, 10). Aside from that, just like other kinds of war, it involves torture and interrogation of innocent civilians. One way of justifying the war against terrorism is the idea that it protects the people from fatal terrorist attacks. Nowadays, terrorist attacks which is most commonly in a form of bombing kills a lot of innocent civilians. Other than that terrorist attacks can affect a nation’s economy that is why there are still doubts whether war against terrorism is really for people. Because the political stability of a states is also threatens by terrorist attacks, there is the possibility that the security of civilians is not the primary concern. Let us look at the condition of war theory and see whether the war against terrorism is a just war. First, the cause must be just and the justice of the cause is sufficiently great. Next, one must be confident that it will not yield long term consequences longer than the status quo. Obviously, it should be the last resort and moral standards should not be compromised. We can say that the first two conditions apply to the war against terrorism but the applications of the latter conditions were questionable. Surely this kind of war will cause long term psychological effects to the civilians involve. It can cause major trauma to the victims that can affect their daily lives even if the war is over. It is also obvious that moral standards were compromised because of the use of torture to gain information. There is also a debate regarding the moral aspect of torture. Indeed, information during war is a necessity for it can serve as a solution to win and end the war immediately. But the question is whether it is needed right here and now to win a particular battle. (May, 196). Form me, whether their information is helpful or necessary in winning the battle, torture is still a form of human rights violation. Indeed, war is not a good way of defending a state. Even if there are just wars, still it is very fatal and those innocent civilians were the common victims. But if there is no other option except war, it is reasonable as long as it promotes the welfare of the states and civilians. References: Elshtain, J. (1992) Modern War and Christian Conscience. But was it Just?. La Civilitta Cattolica. New York. Evans, M. (2005). Just War theory: A reappraisal. New York: Palgraw Macmillan. May, L. (2007). War Crimes and Just War. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (2006). A Just War? Hardly. Retrieved: January 9, 2007 from ZNPT Commentaries. Website: http://www. zmag. org/sustiners/content/2006-05/zochomsky. cfm.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.