Table of ContentsIntroduction: 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 a human action imposed on other people. Sometimes this war is bitter and brutal; was born from ethnic tensions between majority and minority, which still pose gigantic difficulties today. War generally has a criminal aspect, but can it ever be less criminal? There are different possibilities when discussing the question of “justifiable war.” Nations around the world offer many solutions, influences and hypotheses. In fact, war is inevitable; can he ever judge as morally justified? Furthermore, the war had unusual impacts on society in different ways; He makes positive efforts to create peace and freedom; but also full of difficulties and effects on many ethnic groups and cultural beliefs. The Pacific part of the world debates not to justify the war, while others argue to support it. All these facts prove a decent habit, inherited from 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 impact on the planet, may be in no direct danger from the "enemy" and may not even share the intentions of the side they have been admitted to support . War destroys the hopes and dreams of millions, destroys their homelands, terrifies and dominates the population. Ultimately, none of this results in corruption more than moral effects on society. Say no to plagiarism. Get Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original EssayJust WarIf someone influences soldiers to obey orders and execute them cruelly in wars, a particular side annihilates their natural kindness reflexes and their ability to think and act. freely in producing humble works for leaders. No one has the right to execute a living person. War can end the will to live; in those whose survivors have been affected by it, and pretend to kill others those who are forced to kill voluntarily. 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 the common good in order to restore peace to a region. . But as was typical of that era, Aristotle generally had a favorable view of war and war to "avoid becoming the slave of others" is justified as self-defense. Today, we generally don't need to worry too much about this. Nevertheless, this concept influenced the writings of the Roman philosopher Cicero, who, in his De Officiis, wrote extensively on the subject of the right to wage war. In it he states that the decision as to whether or not it was “right” to wage war was decided by the priests. Naturally, this ritual was later adopted by Christians and for the next hundreds of years the rational "because God said" served as a good general reason for why the war was worth fighting. It was not until Saint Thomas Aquinas, well known for just war. theoretician, outlined the conditions under which war could be justified, combining the theological principles of faith with thephilosophical principles of reason. (Rickaby, 1892) These are the conditions which established the framework for the principles of jus ad bellum, the Latin meaning “right to war”. Ultimately, this brings us to today and what just war means in recent history. Reasons for War: Justifiable and UnjustifiableWar is generally a huge economic sinkhole into which a country's resources and manpower are poured. This often forces civilians to work hard without giving them a direct reward. Many countries overspend on manpower and resources to meet the needs of ongoing war, thereby 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 can be justified; even if the real reason for the war is not morally acceptable. Anything that, on a global scale, improves the quality of life of the greatest number of people is acceptable. If the evils against which war is waged, such as racism or terrorism, are universally immoral, war is also acceptable. Waging war to protect the innocent and persecuted or to achieve freedom and human rights is acceptable because no one should be denied these basic privileges. . As long as a war does not injure innocent people or deprive other parties of these rights, it must continue and make the lives of the persecuted people worth living. Wars fought to stop the advance of a morally corrupt power are justifiable, because they are destroying an evil that would cause suffering to more people in the long term. War in self-defense cannot be challenged, otherwise you are vulnerable. Finally, going to war as an ally is justifiable because of the basic decency of helping and being loyal to those who would return their support. But this is only possible when the reasons given by this neighbor for going to war are acceptable and if its objective is moral. However, whether countries against whom a war is not directed should join is controversial: they often make the situation worse by intervening. dilemma.' There are two contradictory types of morality: either loyalty (toward one's neighbor) versus justice (if the reasons they go to war are unjust), or loyalty versus non-violence. To decide whether war can be justified, not only in the above case, but in general, we can draw inspiration from ethical theories. Utilitarianism is a principle that “doing the greatest good for the greatest number” is the best action. Applied to the problem of “can war be justified,” one must look into the future to see what the consequences of war will be – whether war will bring greater overall benefit, with future generations in mind. This rule will give a different answer in each case: if the outcome of a war causes more suffering than good, utilitarianism would say that this war could not be justified; However, if a war, in the long run, would bring more good than harm, utilitarian thinkers will say that this war can be justified. The “rules-based” principle advises people to think “if everyone in the world followed the same rule of action.” I'm about to follow you, would the world be a nice place to live?' Applied to this problem, one might ask whether the world would be a nice place if everyone was at war or if no one was at war. Obviously, living in a place where everyone is at war would be terrible, so a rules-based thinker would say that war cannot be justified. Thinking based on.