There is a such thing as a Just War

In this round, I will express some concerns with Pro's case, and then I shall construct my own. PRO's CASEP1. Just War TheoryPro's explanation of the Just War Theory is accurate--it seems like her definition follows very much in the tradition of St. Augustine. Unfortunately, Pro has failed to lay out specific criteria for a Just War. She says that a Just War is composed of three elements, but this is insufficient. Let us examine why: 1. Jus ad Bellum - Pro says that Political figures are held accountable for crimes committed during wartime. Pro fails to specify what types of actions constitute war crimes; there are many different interpretations. For example, was Hiroshima immoral?2. Jus in Bello - Pro says this "has to do with the justice in a war and the right conduct to follow in battle. " What does that actually mean? What is right conduct? What criteria makes war just? 3. Jus post Bellum - Pro says this "refers to the justice during the last. .. stage of war. " Again, what criteria are we using to measure justice? Pro was required to offer criteria by which we can measure "justice," specifically as it pertains to war. Pro has failed to do this--these three bullets tell us that justice is necessary, but they fail to give any insight whatsoever into what justice is. How can we know if a war is just if we don't have some means of evaluating justice. Since Pro has failed to provide such a checklist, as required, I will define justice later in this round. P2. WarWar is more than a state of armed conflict be groups within a nation. By that definition, police actions against gangs or cartels could be considered "war. " Frankly, that seems to be broadening the understood meaning of the resolution too much. Rather, I offer the following definition:"The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual…for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be…widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. ” Furthermore, “the onset of war requires a commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until a fighter intends to go to war and until it does so with a heavy quantum of force. ” [1]P3. Pro's example: 1, 2 - Pro claims that fighting against aggression is permissible. Yet, I wonder if Pro would argue that Israel's preemptive strike in the six day war, technically an act of aggression under UN law, would be considered immoral. If aggression is not always wrong, than how can we be sure that fighting against it is necessarily always just?3 - While I agree that that type of violence is absolutely disgusting, I wonder if the correct response to that abuse would be war. Surely, humanitarian intervention would be a better option. CON's CASEFrankly, I think the basic question this resolution comes down to is "what is justice? " I will attempt to answer this question using the same Greco-Roman philosophy Pro utilizes, as well as by pulling in some more recent, deontological philosophy. I will then draw a distinction between what is just and what is pragmatic. C1: Plato and JusticeThe notion that war is unjust makes sense, especially when we consider the brutal idea of an “eye for an eye. ” Plato, in his book, The Republic, discusses this interpretation of justice. He argued that ‘harm’ is something inherently bad and negative whereas ‘justice’ is something inherently good and positive. Thus, he argued, justice could never involve harming anyone, because the two concepts were incompatible. War, by its very nature, inflicts harm. So, under Plato’s analysis, war is unjust. C2: Kant/Hegel and JusticeAccording to G. W. F. Hegel, autonomy separates us from all other things. A table cannot be blamed for a moral failing because it cannot choose to do something wrong. A human, on the other hand, is morally relevant insofar as we have this autonomy. This moral worth grants every person an inherent dignity that should be respected. “To be a person is to have a status and worth that is unlike that of any other kind of being: it is to be an end in itself with dignity. And the only response that is appropriate to such a being is respect. Respect is the acknowledgment in attitude and conduct of the dignity of persons as ends in themselves. Respect for such beings is not only appropriate but also morally and unconditionally required. ” [2] This same logic is echoed in Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative. War treats people as means to an end. Soldiers lives are treated as tools used to reach a desired goal: victory. They are treated as means to an end, totally without respect. C3: InnocentsI think we can all agree that the deaths of innocent people is morally wrong. The bear no responsibility in the conflict, and so their deaths are unjust. All wars have led to innocent deaths. Consequently, all wars are unjust, because they unjustly kill innocent people. "What is overlooked by those who believe the benefits of the war outweigh the costs is that killing even one innocent person to benefit others violates the most basic human right--the right to life. .. What Blackstone meant when he characterized the right to life as a God-given right is that it is beyond the power of any mere government to abrogate or repeal. Innocent people may not be killed or injured by the state, even when a majority believes it serves the greater good. .. killing the innocent to advance the cause of freedom of electoral choice or any other purpose, however worthy, must be regarded as wrong. We denounce terrorists because when the freedom of self-determination they seek is weighed in the balance against the right to life of innocent people, it is the right to life that our collective conscience has decided should prevail. ” [3]PRAGMATISM vs. JUSTICEWe agreed in R1 that Justice =/= Pragmatism. I have argued that war is unjust, but I will not dispute that war is sometimes pragmatic. Simply because an action is necessary, does not mean that it is moral. A government has certain pragmatic concerns that it must take into account, and sometimes that leads to war. This is a key distinction to make. Prof. Gary Woller explains: “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. ”SOURCES 1 - . http://plato.stanford.edu... 2 - . http://plato.stanford.edu... 3 - Savoy, Paul (2004). The Nation, 278, 21. p.16. [Paul Savoy, a former assistant district attorney for New York County and past dean of the John F. Kennedy University School of Law in Pleasant Hill, California] Thanks! Over to Pro. ..