On Just and Unjust War Essay

The general thesis of the article titled â€Å"On Just and Unjust War† was in using a recorded panel discussion that addressed how and whether or not one can distinguish between what is a just war versus what would be the considerations involved for a war to be considered an unjust war. The panel discussion was part of a conference entitled â€Å"War, Evil, the End of History, and America Now† that was presented at Skidmore College in the state of New York in March of 2006. The author begins developing the argument by discussing the five criteria that one should use when considering the occasion for war. I felt that the theoretical approach used in the article was excellent. Instead of pulling ideas out of the sky as their theoretical basis, the panel generally focused on theoretical examples that had already occurred in one form or another in current or past history and focused on these. Because there were a variety of viewpoints represented, the input was relatable and spanned a variety of approaches. This New York panel touched on a variety of ethical theoretical considerations and principles of the Just War Debate. One discussion was in regards one determines â€Å"unjust aggression† or â€Å"unjust threats. Another consideration presented was the obligation to protect the innocent, while at the same time clarifying that â€Å"the innocent need not be morally innocent† (Session 4, 2008 p. 209). The ethical consideration of other ways to deal with the situation before resorting to war is included in the panel discussion as was pre-determining some probability of success in advance of war was included. The point was made that â€Å"if you accept the framework of the just war tradition, you have to accept as a starting point that the war can be an instrument of justice† (Session 4, 2008, p. 09). I felt this was the most insightful consideration stated in the discussion to identify why the subject of â€Å"A Just War† is even worth approaching. In discussing pacifism and neo-consequentialism, the point was made that pacifists â€Å"start with the notion that all we control is our own behavior and our own will. People will die; I will not kill† (Session 4, 2008, p. 210). It was discussed how pacifists don’t want to have to take responsibility for any deaths because they cannot guess the consequences. My beliefs may not be the same but it made stimulating discussion. One of the advantages of bringing people together on a panel upon discussing subjects like â€Å"Just War† is that you readily get different ethical theoretical interpretations on the subject being approached. Because we each have different perspectives varying upon our environments, our education, our life experiences, this creates a diversity of ethical interpretations. One comment made by Jean Elshtain was how peace is a slippery concept. â€Å"I daresay no one would contend that the Iraqi people were somehow at peace under the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Baathists† (Session 4, 2008, p. 09). She makes this comment to strengthen the fact that peace is not simply an absence of war because the veil of peace can â€Å"cover up and promote illusion† (Session 4, 2008, p. 209). It is discussed that even the most absolute pacifists can sometimes see war being used as an instrument of justice. The movie â€Å"Glory† was used as an ethical consideration in â€Å"Just War† on how it identified the struggle African-Americans had in convincing Lincoln that African-Americans should be included in fighting for their own freedom. The quote was made, â€Å"I’ll die standing like a man rather than on my knees like a slave† (Session 4, 2008, p. 210). In the time given for this assembly and considering the amount of people represented, I feel there was ample empirical evidence included in the discussion. You have the military persons relating their real life experience to the â€Å"Just War† concept, you have those that consciously abstain from war and other perspectives in between all rendering their thoughts on the considerations of â€Å"Just War. † This discussion made the information far easier to relate to then one person writing an article with resources. It was like making an article 3-Dimensional. When the panel discussed our current war, it was brought up that our government failed the â€Å"Just War† test on every point. We didn’t go in having a probability of success, we didn’t engage in good faith efforts to avoid the war, we didn’t give enough thought to engage in war as a last resort, etc. In discussing the Just War, Michael Massing used Iraq as an example of what all should be considered in the cost of a â€Å"Just War. Not only civilian casualties, but also instability creatd in the region, additional terrorism, damage to the US image in the world. In short we failed in the â€Å"Just War† appraisal with the American intervention. This article based on a panel discussion absolutely makes a contribution to the further understanding of the â€Å"Just War† debate along with important themes in the â€Å"Just War† debate. The discussion was represented in such a way to make the information livelier, engaging and easy to digest. We are taught of the different learning styles as we go through the education system. I found that hearing a variety of perspectives represented by using a discussion panel is always stronger in my understanding of a subject. Each individual relays information differently so that the odds are increased that they can relate to a wider audience since a variety of teaching styles are represented. I found the article â€Å"On Just and Unjust War† to be very clearly written and very relatable. This was an article I would enjoy reading whether it was an assignment or more importantly, if it were not. The variety of voices represented in the panel discussion were able to add a human element to the facts. Because personal experiences are interwoven through the article along with the invaluable information and discussion, this helps the reader in understanding the points made throughout the article. Another element of this article which would go under the â€Å"strengths† column would be that the panel consisted of those who had already been active in some wars, those who had made a conscious decision not to participate in war and every viewpoint in between. One of the reasons I felt this was an excellent article was that I read it multiple times because I enjoyed it whereas other articles I read multiple times to merely understand them. The panel did such a clear and excellent job of presenting the information that upon completing the article, I could relate to both sides of opinions on the â€Å"Just and Unjust War† debate. I consider myself to be an open-minded person but I did go into reading this article with one opinion and completed the article with a broader understanding of the whole. Although it’s simpler and easier to look at things as black and white or right and wrong, through the process of understanding, we often discover there are no extremes, no positives without the negatives. So basically I come away from this reading with a better understanding of the gray.