NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2018. See message below.
Summary: Affirmed by numerous theologians and assimilated by Christian academia, just war theory presents a formidable challenge, particularly bolstered by its likely esteem in the eyes of your audience.
Released: Filed Under: Archives
About "Just War Theory (OPP)"
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy enumerates the following criteria for dictating a just war.
- Just Cause: “The war is an attempt to avert the right kind of injury.”
- Legitimate Authority: “The war is fought by an entity that has the authority to fight such wars.”
- Right Intention: “That entity intends to achieve the just cause, rather than using it as an excuse to achieve some wrongful end.”
- Reasonable Prospects of Success: “The war is sufficiently likely to achieve its aims.”
- Proportionality: “The morally weighted goods achieved by the war outweigh the morally weighted bads that it will cause.”
- Last Resort (Necessity): “There is no other less harmful way to achieve the just cause.”
“Typically the jus in bello [justice in war] list comprises:
- Discrimination: “Belligerents must always distinguish between military objectives and civilians, and intentionally attack only military objectives.”
- Proportionality: “Foreseen but unintended harms must be proportionate to the military advantage achieved.”
- Necessity: “The least harmful means feasible must be used.”
Affirmed by numerous theologians and assimilated by Christian academia, just war theory presents a formidable challenge, particularly bolstered by its likely esteem in the eyes of your audience. This extensive brief outlines numerous arguments against just war theory, from illustrating its inconsistency to promoting pacifism.
- Download the document with the button above. Study this release and get to know it well. File and print as necessary to prepare for your upcoming competition.
- This download is exclusively for Monument Members participating in Season 19. Any use outside this membership is a violation of U.S. Copyright Law and violators will be prosecuted.
- As always, double check all claims, warrants, hyperlinks and the current news in case any changes have occurred that will affect your competition.
- Do you have questions about this download? Tap in your comment at the bottom of the page. The author, the site owner, or another member will most likely reply.
Permission & Usage
Click Here for complete information on permissions. All membership content is proprietary intellectual content, so please respect its copyright. Simply put, if you are not a Monument Member, you may not use it or share its content. If one partner of a debate team is a member and the other is not, the one who is a Monument Member must be the controller of the logins, downloads and incorporation of the Monument Membership material. Sharing logins is strictly prohibited.
Would you like to join?
Downloads like these don't grow on trees. They take hard work from experts. But we make it easy and affordable with a membership, and we'd love for you to join us! Fill out the fields below to be included in all that Season 19 has to offer:
Click here for more information.
Joel consistently won tournaments or advanced deep into elimination rounds in NCFCA speech and Lincoln-Douglas debate. As a collegiate forensics competitor, he has enjoyed similar success with parliamentary debate and mock trial. Currently, Joel studies philosophy at Wheaton College and coaches debate for multiple organizations.