Is it ever justified to engage in a war or a preemptive attack? The just war theory presumes there are legitimate uses of war but encompasses moral boundaries on waging a just war. Jus ad bellum (moral justifications for going to war) requires the cause for war be just, that the person making the decision has the authority to do so, that the decision intends to bring about peace, that war is a last resort, and the overall evil of the war does not outweigh the good that could result from it.
Prepare:
Prior to beginning work on this journal, review each of the resources listed below:
Chapter 1: Jus in Bellos Missing Piece in .
Chapter 1: Intelligence and The Just War Tradition: The Need for a Flexible Ethical Framework in .
Chapter 8: Privacy, Bulk Collection and Operational Utility in .
Reflect:
This journal assignment is an opportunity to reflect on what you have learned about the moral justifications of war.
The following are examples that you may use as a starting point when writing your reflection. You may decide to focus on one or more of the examples.
The two fundamental questions about the ethics of war and peace are:
When is it morally and legally justified for a country to go to war?
What moral principles should be followed during war?
Is it possible that information could be skewed to manipulate perceptions of whether a war meets the just description?
If ethics can be subjective to an individual or groups belief system, is the definition of just also subjective?
Does our understanding of just war extend to declaring War on Terrorism?