Assignment 9- Isaac

For me, the questions posed boil down to whether someone is more of a mind to agree with the just war theory as opposed to the theory of militarism, or the other way around. The just war theory has many outlying stipulations depending on which philosopher you ask, but there are some things everyone basically agrees on: The cause for war must be just, meaning it cannot be to sustain an economy, punish peoples who have done meager wrongs, or recapture taken things- only if innocents are in imminent or immediate danger may a war be started. There can also be no ulterior motives associated with the war. Also, the probability of success in the war has to be reasonable. Any "evil acts" committed in the war must be outweighed by the outcome of the acts, force should be kept to a minimum, and P.O.W's must be fairly treated. That is the essence of just war.

Militarism, on the other hand, is the theory that a government should maintain a strong military and be prepared to use it aggressively in the interest of the nation. It is also associated with glorification of the military or violence in general in popular culture and/or propaganda. Nations often associated with militarism are North Korea, Nazi Germany, and The United States of America (yes, seriously).

So, is there a time for war. Just war theorists and militarists can agree that there is... but under different circumstances. "Is the war to stop human rights violations?" asks the just war theorist. If yes, he's on board. "But," says the militarist, "will it aid our economy and make our nation stronger". "If so," he muses, "then I'm all for it. Otherwise I'll need to sleep on it." (he's not heartless, after all). In short, no matter which side you fall on, there is a time for war. Unless you're a pacifist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the lesser of two evils," but the war ought to be morally right- now is a good time to mention that I fall more on the "just war" side of the coin. But many would argue that, if the war were to boost the economy of their country and strengthen nationalism, and toss the morality.

Alternatives are tricky. Just war theorists, myself included, feel that if there is an alternative to be had, it should be taken. Militarists might agree... assuming that it would aid their country in some way. Alternatives also have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and you would be hard pressed to find an infallible solution to each and every war. Also, if an alternative is ineffective, it's not really an alternative.