1.
Summarize the central themes, theses, issues, or arguments of the reading assignment.
The central theme of “Just War” is rationalization. It’s about finding the purpose, the reason, the ‘what-if’ instead of the ‘why not’ that battles are fought for. The issue is what does it take to maintain peace. Chapter by chapter, there are examination of what nations have done to keep war a controlled chaos instead of reckless hysteria. Few focus on what can be done successful to avoid it altogether so well that this extreme would come up. In the end, that is the argument: is war necessary? Must conflict be solved with battles instead of rulings? And, why people need rules.
2.
Summarize at least four key points made by the author.
War is needs three position to be successful:there must be financial support, young people to fight, and a nation to believe in the cause. The focus on the people to fight must be young to install generation values. This way, the cause isn’t of the present but futuristic.
War is the means to protection, not invasion. And within conditions of terrorism against a mobile enemy: tact and caution is to be used when pointing fingers. If there is a blind attack, a retaliation, more damage is done and it makes matters worse.
Describing “good guys” and “bad guys” is indecipherable because it is a matter of opinion. When the success of a war is waged and supported by the hearts of the citizens, motivated by the citizens, it is because they believe in the reality they exist in or want. That is what makes that civilization the “good guy”. Anyone who opposes it, especially if that Other reality is different or is selfish with resources, then that clarifies the Other, as “bad”.
The purpose of War was not to be malicious. It was to be concerned as a last resort when terms of peace failed. War is supposed to be an agreed repercussion, the distortion, of settling a tainted matter by punishing the wrongdoer and giving the wronged satisfaction.
There are three acts in war. The first is The Right, where the purpose is to maintain peace and protect the innocent. The second is Conduct, by protecting the citizen’s lives and making sure the war is won. The third is Justice, where the victor is to perform the courteous and industrious act of rebuilding the civilization conquered.
3.
Raise at least two or more questions, critical or informational, related to the reading.
My first question is What is the difference between “society” and “human affairs”? I can understand that they can be different, one is small and the other may even be global, but it spotlights an idea that a ‘society’ is faultless. Not that it can be, but is. I think it contradicts that society wouldn’t deserve the fundamental police officers but instead followed a set of rules that are already installed, easily obeyed, and didn’t need reinforcement other than intrinsic values.
I would like to know Why is restitution not a requirement? It seems that when war is more commercial and less ‘amongst the people, for the people’ that hate and indifference becomes a natural development. Or Is restitution more damaging? Considering the successor is installing themselves into the rejecting community.
What is not to be done when a nation’s conscience is not respected? The simple answer would be not to war—the text provides the option to “rebel against an illegitimate government”—but there are military officers who side with the government, who are loyal to the government. And when I say ‘nation’, I’m referring to those who aren’t fighting, cannot or would not. Should a nation support its government’s interest? Is that when there is a civil war? And everyone is “bad guy”? Would this be the time to insert religion? What would Jesus do?
4.
In a paragraph, characterize your critical reflections on the ideas presented in this reading assignment.
The one thing that stuck with me was concerning the proportionality of war. All the other points were intellectual, from concerning ‘Whether God approves of human actions’ to ‘If the people can handle the undertaking’ to ‘What is the most fair ruling we can provide as we conquer’ but the one theory of war that meant anything to me was about effects of war. Proportionality. The simple idea of proportionality—if I may use a metaphor—is that If You Are Digging A Bigger Hole Than Intended: Stop. That’s it: Stop. And that is what war is, a hole. After all the building of peace and harmony and agriculture, a war puts those features at risk. It creates a deficit. It brings up the wrong questions: who would be affected; who will be adapted; what does it cost; do we have to pay for this? The Conclusion provided the serenity I wanted to see: The question of ‘Why War At All?’ By stating that the “just war model was never meant to justify war. It was meant to limit war, to control war, and even to avoid war” is somewhat better for me to know there was a normal thesis to controlling wars.
