War as an Instrument of Justice – Analyzing Perspectives from Against Offensive Warfare and What is a Just War

War as an Instrument of Justice – Analyzing Perspectives from Against Offensive Warfare and What is a Just War

The idea that war can be an instrument of justice is one of the most destructive concepts that exist. The philosophical view of Mo Tzu in “Against Offensive Warfare” and the just war theorist Jean Bethke Elshtain in “What is a Just War?” shows that war is an inherently destructive and immoral action that can never be justified no matter the reason. Although efforts have been made to outline the circumstances in which a war could be described as ‘just,’ the concept of war is inherently incompatible with the promotion of justice and morality.

Why War Cannot Be Just

The foundation of Mo Tzu’s philosophy is the doctrine of “universal love,” which means that every human should cherish and defend all people as one cherishes and defends one’s own family or country. By its nature, war implies the massive destruction of other people’s lives and their submission to one’s will. Mo Tzu also states that even petty acts of violence and theft are wrong, and therefore, the destruction in war is much worse (Tzu, n.d.). The aspect of war that entails the enemy being reduced to an object not deserving of human respect goes against the Mohist notion of universal love. No reason can be provided for such a blatant disregard for our moral responsibility to our fellow man.

Besides the ethical issues of warfare, Mo Tzu also speaks of the impractical nature of war and the resources it consumes. He also points out that war is no different from theft and other acts of violence in that it is a process in which one party gains at the expense of the other. War does not create any real, lasting positive gain; instead, it merely reallocates resources and destroys them. This is in accordance with Elshtain’s argument that a just war must have the likelihood of success, a condition that is hardly ever fulfilled (Elshtain, 2010). The massive human and material losses incurred in wars mean that war is not only wasteful but also a counterproductive way of seeking justice or any other noble cause.

Even the most ardent supporters of the just war doctrine, such as Elshtain, admit that the criteria for determining the justice of a war are far from clear and unambiguous. In this regard, Elshtain is right to point out that such notions as “just cause” and “right intention” are rather ambiguous (Elshtain, 2010). World history is full of examples when one of the parties in a conflict considered it as a war of defense, while the other – as a war of aggression. This failure in the application of just war principles negates the possibility of war as an instrument of justice. If the criteria of a just war are so flexible and dependent on the prejudices of those in power, then war can never be used as a dependable or moral tool for solving conflicts.

Counterargument and Rebuttal

It is possible to suggest that if the war is waged to defend oneself or to protect innocent people from the oppressors, it can be considered a just act according to Elshtain’s criteria (Elshtain, 2010). However, as mentioned earlier, these concepts are rather vague and can be easily distorted or misused. Furthermore, the scale and intensity of contemporary warfare render it improbable that any war can be just, even if the cause is the defense or protection of the innocents. The loss of lives and the pain that comes with it as a result of war, regardless of the reason, will always be a bigger loss than any perceived gain.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the idea of war as an instrument of justice is a fiction that is potentially lethal. Based on the philosophical concepts of Mo Tzu and the practicality of just war theory, as discussed by Elshtain, it is clear that armed conflict is a wrong and inherently flawed approach to the protection of morality and attainment of justice. The dehumanization, futility, and subjective application of just war principles all lead to the inescapable conclusion that war, in any form, is inconsistent with justice and should be dismissed as a rational means of statecraft. Real justice is possible only by non-violent means, based on the recognition of the value of every human life and the need to respect it.

References

Elshtain, J. (2010). What is a Just War? Reading the World: Ideas that Matter, edited by Michael Austin, W.W. Norton & Co., 2010, pp. 296 – 298.Tzu, M. (n.d.). Against Offensive Warfare.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Carefully read the essays “Against Offensive Warfare” and “What is a Just War.” Using both sources, write an essay where you agree or disagree that war can be used as an instrument of justice.

War as an Instrument of Justice – Analyzing Perspectives from Against Offensive Warfare and What is a Just War

The Flawed Instrument- Why War Cannot Be Just
The Flawed Instrument- Why War Cannot Be Just

Make sure you use and cite both essays properly.
An introduction. In this introduction, you must present the issue and your stance on the
issue (i.e. whether you agree with the statement and why). Please be sure your thesis is
clear and direct.
• Three body paragraphs. Each paragraph should discuss a different reason for your
position.
• A counterargument/rebuttal paragraph. You must address and refute an alternative
opinion (you can do this in one paragraph or two).
• A conclusion. You must sum up the contents of your paper while using new and
interesting language