Imagine a criminal is inside your neighbor’s house. To stop the criminal from doing any harm, your other neighbors decide to set the house on fire to kill the criminal. When you protest, your neighbors call you a hermit. Now imagine this: another country is being ruled by an oppressive dictator, so the United States government decides to bomb that country. Those who oppose bombing are called isolationists. For some reason, while the former situation would be considered absurd, the latter is considered reasonable. Use of force may be morally acceptable if and only if strictly in defense of self or others; however, war almost always harms civilians, which is morally wrong.
An understanding of the Just War Theory can explain which wars are just and unjust. While the Just War Theory originated in Catholic theology, its principles are compatible with any belief system that values human life. The criteria for a just war include that it must be fought as a last resort, with a just cause, legitimate authority, the right intention, a rational probability of success, and a distinction between the enemy and civilians (“Just-War Theory”). By these standards, none of the wars the United States has been involved in could be considered just.
Some wars are fought with a just cause, but do not meet all the criteria for a just war. In World War II, for example, Hitler was clearly on the side of evil, and we were right to stop him, but the United States was responsible for the killing of civilians. Over 150,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima and 75,000 were killed in Nagasaki (“Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll”). Between 35,000 and 100,000 were killed in Dresden (Taylor). Because nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately, they cannot be used in a just war.
A common argument in favor of weapons that kill indiscriminately is that they are sometimes necessary to prevent more deaths. For example, it is widely believed among Americans that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end World War II, even though evidence suggests that Japan already knew they had lost the war ("Was Hiroshima Necessary to End the War?"). Even still, killing indiscriminately in a war is no more reasonable than setting a house on fire because a criminal is inside the house. We must go out of our way to avoid killing civilians in war.
Although the Democrats are considered by many to be the anti-war party, unjust warfare isn’t limited to the Republican Party. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton expressed views on foreign policy that are incompatible with just war. Clinton argued that “more [air] strikes” are necessary to defeat ISIS (Clinton). Anti-war protests were much more mainstream during the Bush administration than they were during the Obama administration, despite the two presidents having similar foreign policies.
A few things must change within the anti-war community to be more effective. Education is extremely important. The anti-war movement must also welcome people of all backgrounds. Unfortunately, anti-war protests have excluded other groups because of their views on other issues. For example, consistent life group Rehumanize International was excluded from two anti-war marches in 2017, due to their anti-abortion position. This is not the way to effectively protest war. Pro-life organizations could benefit the anti-war movement, so that conservative pro-lifers will be less likely to write off opposition to unjust war as a leftist concern.
In conclusion, unjust war is a serious problem that our world faces. When no distinction is made between the enemy and civilians, people are killed indiscriminately, which cannot be morally justified. The problem of unjust war isn’t just limited to the Republican Party; Democratic politicians support it as well. Many are misinformed about war, and many anti-war activists are unwilling to welcome those whose views on unrelated issues differ from theirs, which only makes the anti-war movement weaker. While defensive killing is morally acceptable, indiscriminate killing is not, making the vast majority of wars immoral.
No comments:
Post a Comment