A Just Society Sould Never Deliberately Initiate War

Yeah--sorry about the mix up on sides. But, I guess it should be intriguing to see our arguments for the opposite take on the topic. Okay, here's my case: I negate. Observation One: Never is defined by Merriam Webster as "at no time; under no circumstances." Thus, the affirmative must argue that a just society, regardless of other considerations, cannot go to war. If there are conditions under which a just society may deliberately initiate war, i.e. if there is a possibility a just society may initiate war, then one must negate. Observation Two: "Should" expresses what is best or most suitable. This is illustrated by the sentence, "people should eat healthy." Thus, an affirmative is arguing that war is never the best or most suitable course of action for a just society. Observation Three: To say that a just society exists is not to say that a just society cannot be surrounded by unjust or aggressive ones. We cannot say, therefore, that a just society exists in isolation from threats that it may need to respond to. My value premise is Societal Welfare, defined as the health and wellbeing of a society and its members. When discussing whether societies should or should not initiate war, we must consider how war will impact a society"s welfare. Thus, prefer this value on strength of link. The value criterion for this round must be Pragmatism, defined as practicality in problem-solving. According to Prof. Gary Woller, prefer pragmatism as a weighing calculus because societies must act practically. He contends: "Appeals to a priori moral principles...often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense"the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that"their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society." This implies a discussion of pragmatism. Woller 2 observes that: "deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy...a priori moral principles...do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and"create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem." My premise is that it is both possible for a just society to go to war and that it is practical for a just society"on occasion"to employ war as a tool from the toolkit. Point One: There are external threats a just society will need to preemptively respond to. According to Prof. James Schall, "Machiavelli advised that a prince should spend most of his time preparing for war...If we are this prince"s neighbors, do we take no notice of his preparations?...The prince thinks war is an answer. It can help him in his goal of acquiring and keeping power. We may have to suffer a defeat at his hands, but we should not choose to bring one on ourselves. Though much carnage happens in war, still we cannot conclude from this that 'war is not the answer.' It may not be the only answer," but it is oftentimes the most practical. "No valid alternative to war can be a mere...frivolous hope that nothing bad will happen no matter what." Point Two: War as a means of intervention is oftentimes effective. Professors Western and Goldstein note: "many of the criticisms formulated in response to the botched campaigns of 1992-95 still guide the conversation about intervention today. The charges are outdated. Contrary to the claims that interventions prolong wars...the most violent and protracted cases in recent history...have been cases in which the international community was unwilling either to intervene or to sustain a commitment with credible force." According to Prof. Patrick Regan of the University of Canterbury, 82.4 percent of major power interventions are successful. Point Three: Nonviolent acts often are unsuccessful. Prof. Brian Martin notes, "Nonviolent action is not guaranteed to succeed...The...prodemocracy movement in China, after a short flowering, was crushed in the Beijing massacre. Perhaps more worrying are the dispiriting aftermaths following some short-term successes of nonviolent action...The aftermath of the Iranian revolution was disastrous. The new Islamic regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini was just as ruthless as its predecessor." Ultimately, he concludes non-violent resistances alone tend to fail on balance. Point Four: The initiation of precise, limited war now, does prevent more destructive war later. Prof. W. Burke-White contends that deliberately initiated war is a tool that can force other governments to respect human rights. Even the possibility of it being used deters regimes from infringing global ethical norms. This in turn promotes peace. He states: "states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression...a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance global security" by reducing a nation"s war capital. Point Five: War is justified as a tool in the toolkit. Affirming would rule out war for any reasons. It makes sense that, even if war does not work in all cases, that we don"t rule it out, because there may a come a time when it will be the best option. To place such restrictions on action"as the affirmative would have us do"is not pragmatic or reasonable. It is not in the best interests of any society. Therefore, war should be justified as a tool in our toolkit; it doesn"t need to be used in every case, but it should be there in case we need it. Insofar as it"s possible for a just society to wage war, and that having the ability to initiate war is highly practical, it is in the interest of societal welfare to negate"thus ensuring a just society"s ability to respond to its needs in the most suitable manner possible, even if that means war.