Prompt: Do you agree or disagree with the following: “Evil means justify honorable ends.” Using your knowledge of the text, write a well thought out analysis relating to the quote. In Catch-22, the definition of terms such as ‘evil’ and ‘honorable’ are as warped and contorted as possible. As a result, there is an unethical solace found in the ruling of the bureaucracy, who, as stated in the journal prior, are the clear antagonists.…
Natural Law vs. Positive Law In spite of the personal opposition to the issue of slavery, President Abraham Lincoln took office in 1861 citing his constitutional duty of keeping the nation together rather than abolishing slavery. Lincoln intended to reunite the Union. Nonetheless, there were critical issues during the war, which compelled him to contend with slavery under his leadership.…
The “Just War” theory was created with the intent of helping determine whether someone could justify war ( jus ad bellum), what the conduct during war should be (jus in bello), and if the end goal was for peace or termination of the war (jus post bellum). Before the Crusades, Pope Urban II gave speeches to rally up support for war against Muslims who had taken control of Christian land. Although Urban II’s ideas seem reasonable, they actually contradict the “just war” theory. He uses any means to make war justifiable, but his speech was missing a few aspects to make it so.…
Damian Carmona Emily Chappell Rhetoric appreciation 10 March 2024 Just Mercy In Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson shows there is a problem with the criminal justice problems. It shows how the criminal justice system does not care about the imprisoned, a prime example of how many people have been wrongly convicted includes a man who was falsely convicted. Stevenson covers wrongfully imprisoned people and uses his efforts to fight for their freedom. Bryan Stevenson is an acclaimed lawyer and social justice advocate who has written other best-selling novels such as Five Kids and One Gun. Stevenson highlights the problems of the US criminal justice system and systematic racism.…
Even before World War One, the desire to abolish the cycle of war was apparent in civilized society. This was made apparent by William James with his essay “The Moral Equivalent of War”. In his essay, James argues through anecdotes and multiple viewpoints that another method besides warfare should be used to advance civilization. James utilizes perspective throughout his essay to strengthen his argument through an ethos appeal. Throughout his work, he consistently acknowledges two parties: pacifists and advocates of war.…
There are several arguments against the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. For instance, some argue that it is impossible to ever justify recurring to war, under any circumstances or provocations. Proponents of these arguments explain that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it is inevitable, hence, modern war will eventually escalate to nuclear war, and the consequences will be too catastrophic to be justifiable. Those who defend this point of view argue that the only way to avoid all these catastrophic consequences is the rejection of war altogether, in other words, taking a Pacifist position. The connection of the previous arguments against the use of nuclear weapons to the requirements of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello is that nuclear weapons do not accomplish with the main purpose of Just War Tradition, which is preventing and saving innocent lives.…
The Hiroshima bombing in 1945 was a devastating infamy, leaving hundreds of thousands of people critically injured or dead. The American government concluded that this was the most effective course of action to force Japan to surrender, which also helped in bringing the second world war to its end. This tragic event was undoubtedly a morally unacceptable choice of action in war, therefore the United States is ethically responsible for the war crime of nuclear bombing the Japanese city, Hiroshima. Through an analysis of the atomic bombing on Hiroshima using the Jus in Bello and Jus Ad Bellum Just War Principles, this essay will demonstrate why the United States bears moral responsibility for a war crime. In “Contemporary Moral Problems” by James E. White,…
The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states and countries to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states or countries and not to individuals however an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war. A Christian would agree with the Just War theory because it gives a reliable guide of what is acceptable when war is to be broken out (and there was also wars in the Bible like in Deuteronomy 20 when Israel was told that they will be going into war. Also in 2Chronicles 32). For example, war must be the last resort which means that you must have tried other options like talking it out to solve the problem before you engage in war.…
The third reason Dr. Land proposes for a justifiable war is last resort. When a war is entered because peaceful reasoning, among other peaceful methods, has been exhausted, war is justified (Land). Before the Israelite Exodus from Egypt, Moses asked multiple times for Pharaoh to set the Israelites free. Pharaoh consistently refused, occasionally allowing the Israelites to leave but retracting this release before they got away.…
Introduction Many understand the fact that war is rarely ever justifiable and that the idea…
2. I believe that there are a few reasons a war would be considered just. A fight for freedom and independence from a tyrannical government that is oppressing its people would be a valid reason to wage war. I also…
The fundamental objective of international law, to regulate the relations between sovereign states, has become a standard to evaluating the effectiveness of different approaches to international law. Various philosophical disciplines have interpreted the importance and usefulness of international law in order to establish a better understanding of how international law is to be executed. This paper will take a thorough look at how two different philosophers have explained the concepts and principles that make up international law. Specifically, analyzing how Niccolò Machiavelli and Hugo Grotius present contrasting ideas of the original principles of international law and propose different ways through which international law should be justly…
When exactly is military force justified? Is it ever justified? The answer lies, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. But when one considers…
The principles relating to the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in general, are well settled and applied consistently. The maxim Res Ipsa Loquitor, allows the claimant to succeed in action for negligence even when there is no evidence as to what caused the accident and whether it was attributable to negligence on the part of the defendant. It shifts the onus of burden to the defendant.…
Treaties and alliances are created between countries to maintain peace and order; as well as, it is a preventive method to try and ensure that countries do not plunder each other. It is for the common good of the universe at large, and in order to guarantee the safety of their nation, leaders make alliances just in case. International law is concerned with protecting basic human rights, which are, life, freedom, and happiness. When international laws are being created, leaders must determine how they can safeguard the well-being and the common good for their countries without invading the rights of others. Thomas Aquinas states that a law is unjust if it is against “human good” (Adams 83) and when a law has been separated from laws of nature.…