Just war is based on the justification of the way and the reasons for starting wars. The reason may be historical or theoretical depending on the situation. The theoretical reasons are based on ethics and the principles of the war, whereas historical reasons are due to the rules and policies that were historically outlined. Historical reasons limit the warfare based on historical principles. Just war depends on the philosophical goals of the war whereas the ethical limits the duties based on the biblical principles (Steffen, 2012).
One of the ethical principles of a just war is deontology. This is the theory, which states that individuals have to accomplish their own responsibilities, and the duties allocated to them while trying to deal with the ethical situations. This implies that an individual is justified to have a just warfare when fulfilling his duty to the members of the family or society. Such an individual may be a brother trying to protect the siblings, a member of the family or father protecting his family among other reasons (Fiala, (2008). This theory defines the duties and responsibilities that are given to the individuals; for instance, the military force in the nation has to protect the nation. Those that go beyond through sacrificing their own life are being rewarded. They go beyond the limits just to offer protection as their obligation. For instance, when an individual gets robbed, and the robbers ask that one person has to die in order to protect the rest of the family, then the father offers to die that is supererogation. The Jihad for instance, in the Muslim religion states that one can die in order to save the rest; therefore, such a person is rewarded and said to have died a holy death that is why they go fighting, but people take away their lives in the processes as a way of accomplishing the ethics of jihad (Steffen, 2012).
Limitations
Even though deontology has many positives, it as well has the limitations. One them being that; the theory does not have a reason or an organized way to give obligations to an individual. For instance, a trader may decide to be responsible for attending meetings on time since he wants to get the first sit, not that the meeting is very essential. Therefore, some people may decide to fight not because they want to protect, but because they want to steal. The other disadvantage is that the roles may be conflicting with one another whereby his duty is not to take care of others or protect, but because of his own benefit but ends up hurting or causing war for the innocent. For example, in the post violence, the leaders may conflict because of the power, but in the end, it leads to war, which then affects the innocent citizens. Such an intention is not ethical at all because it leads to poor decision making. Then lastly, since deontology does not act based on the given duty, there is no specific guidance as one encounters a tougher situation, especially when it comes to the conflicting duties (Fiala, (2008). Therefore, the people responsible for carrying out an obligation should also have morals and the duties should be assigned in an organized and modern way so that people do not take advantage of the situation.
References
Fiala, A. G. (2008). The just war myth: The moral illusions of war. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.
Steffen, L. H. (2012). Ethics and experience: Moral theory from just war to abortion. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
