1.First,
note the formal criteria for “just war” given in the readings this week. What
are the advantages and disadvantages of committing to a set of formal criteria
for future decisions concerning the use of force?
2.Second, one consequence of religious influence on ideas concerning warfare is
that wars are often viewed as battles between good and evil. How might such a
perception affect one side’s adherence to jus in bello rules? Should the
relative rightness of one’s cause affect whether the jus in bello rules are
followed? (Note: this isn't an opinion question -- be sure to look at the ways
that the various writers would answer these questions as well.)
Remember to pull in examples from the readings including primary sources. Remember to reply your classmates' posts too.
1.The just war theory offers guidelines for how governments should behave in possible conflict circumstances. Although a person can utilize the theory to determine whether taking part in a specific battle is ethically acceptable, it only pertains to communities and not civilians[1]. It is believed that the custom of just war, which comprises a set of rules for combat that both sides may agree based on, historically emerged amongst enemies of similar cultures. People frequently discover that they intuitively or overtly agree on boundaries to their combat when two opposing populations embrace a range of values[2]. However, combat standards are infrequently used when enemies have significant racial, religious, or linguistic distinctions and regard one another as inferior beings. The formation of norms for how conflicts should be waged, who should be involved, and what classes of influences ought to be observed after a conflict only occurs when the opponent is understood to be an individual with whom one would conduct commerce in the following peace[3]. Participants are therefore encouraged to consider the ethical ramifications of their conduct.