(i)Examine the view that it may be possible to justify involvement in war on some occasions. The Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be theoretical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with justifying war ethically. The role of ethics is used to examine whether war is justified and if so can the aspects be changed. The just war tradition also considers the thoughts of various philosophers through the ages and examine their philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits and whether their thoughts have contributed to the justification of war.
The just war theory was firstly developed by Saint Augustine of Hippo. Looking back at the Bible he realised that although older generations sided with the more peaceful aspects of the Bible (New Testament) the aspects which included violence (Old Testament) could not be ignored. In Mathew 5 it Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers” however he did not oppose those who crucified him. This links to how war can be justified because Jesus Gods only son did not punish those who purposely killed him without reason. So to punish those with to an extent have a valid reason could be seen as hypocritical. Augustine believed that justified wars were commanded by God in the bible and split his theory into two parts they are; jus ad bellum-just reasons for going to war, and jus in bello-just practice in war. This was then further developed by Aquinas.
Jus ad bellum contains seven key points. If these points are met then war can be justified. The points are; just authority-war must be ordered by legitimate authority, just cause-there must be just reason for going to war, just intention- war must be intended to achieve lasting peace, proportionality- the injustice which led to the war must be proportionate to the damage it causes, last resort- all peaceful alternatives must have been tried first, reasonable chance of success-war can only be just if it can succeed. These seven key points are what makes a war justified. However they cannot always be incorporated into a war so it contradicts that war can be justified but however links to war being justified on some occasions. An example being the Iraq war. On this occasion it followed the majority of the rules set except the methods used did not avoid the killing of civilians as this is hard in any war. It is completely impossible for a war to occur and civilians not be killed because soldiers are not always on target when attacking meaning that instead of retaliating and hitting the proposed target surrounding areas containing civilians may be affected. This war was in the benefit of Iraqis civilians and civilians from neighbouring countries as Iraqi national Saddam Hussein had in his possession weapons of mass destruction. If USA did not intervene much more damage could have been caused meaning in this situation war could be seen as justified because it helps keep safe the majority of people. However, by having war it could be seen that we as society are losing a young generation of people contradicting that the war is justified. Should we lose a younger generation to save ourselves? And if so does this still mean that war can be justified?

Another reason as to why war may be justified is jus in bello. Jus in Bello has six key points. For war to be justified and justice to be conducted during war these rules have to be applied. These points are; proportionality- proportional force to achieve the end they seek, discrimination-those at war have an obligation to choose between appropriate and inappropriate targets of destruction and between civilians and those involved in the war, obeying of international rules on war, fair treatment of prisoners of war, soldiers may not use weapons or methods of warfare that are evil in themselves, respect the rights of its own citizens even if engaged in war. Proportionality states that there should be a reasonable proportion between the injustice being fought and the suffering inflicted by the war. Robert Holmes in his book ‘On War and Morality’ said ‘unless one can justify the actions necessary to waging war, one cannot justify the conduct of war’. If a country can justify why they have gone to war linking in with the Jus ad bellum rules then there is a higher chance of that said country having a justified reason for going to war. This means that in the case that the jus ad bellum rules have been (to the highest degree) followed then war can be justified. However, this can be seen as being unrealistic and pointless as nations fight for power etc and not on the basis of an ethical theory. This means that rules such as fair treatment of prisoners of war and the respect of rights for citizens may not happen. Soldiers may feel as if they are there to do on job and ethical values such as fair treatment may not come into thought. Thus meaning that maybe the majority of occasions e.g. Iraq war cannot be justified.
Overall, it could be seen that war can be justified in some situations. If Jus ad bellum and jus in bello are followed then the war has at first was analysed and it was used as a last resort. The war would also be authorised by a United Nations whose aims are to provide peace for all civilians, food, shelter and water. This means that in the situation of the both Jus ad bellum and jus in bello being used war could be just as it benefits the greater good and tries to decrease the number of casualties it also does not allow room for wars over things such as politics and natural resources to occur as they are personal benefits. (ii)Comment on the view that no war can ever be justified.
War not being justified is pacifism. Pacifism is the idea that war and violence are unjustifiable, and that conflicts should be settled in a peaceful way. People who believe in this are pacifist. Although pacifism is the idea of peace there are different levels of pacifism which have different opinions on war ever being justified. Religious pacifism is majorly used by Quakers a group of non-conformist Protestants. They believe that violence only leads to more violence and that the just war theory goes against the teachings of Jesus who constantly used peace as a way of life alongside forgiveness. They also believe that war cannot always be the only option. The point of war means that all situations have been analysed and it has been seen that it is the only option. This would highlight that war cannot be justified as Aquinas said that war has to be the last result in Jus ad bellum because he has said this it means that all possible options have to be tested. This is theoretically impossible as not all options can be tested as factors such as human error, ethical values and religious values can come into connection with this. It is impossible to control the cause of war as Aquinas has used in his just war theory also conduct cannot be controlled as war is organised chaos. The rules set to make a war just cannot be followed by everyone and it cannot be monitored that all are following the rules also.
Another point as to why war is never justified is because it can be seen that the just war can be open for interpretation or abuse. Larger countries such as the UK and US were accused of such especially in the run up to the war that occurred in Iraq. Although the rules are known by many individual especially ones in high military or political places. It is seen that they sometimes bend and change the rules to suit them. Doing so means that technically the war is not just and if countries like the US and UK do this then it means that headway for other countries to do so can occur. This means that the just war theory cannot apply to all circumstances as seen. The theory seems to make wars seem justified but in all reality the war would not be justified as both sides in the war would claim justice but this both claims made cannot be equally valid.
Overall, it could be seen that war could be justified under some circumstances. However, the scale of how just the war can be is what defines if any war is truthfully justified. The rule of the just war theory can be changed, altered, misinterpreted or abused. Doing this then confuses us into believing that what we as society think is just, may in fact not be and for this to change the theory would have to be modified as the theory of jus war was made centuries before now.