Is war ever justified

Wars mountain be warf arerant through the utilitarian guess and cost benefit outline. These atomic number 18 restricted on whether the intention of the war is right and the cause for the war is just. Further, wars are only rid when other forms of conflict management eat up been act and have failed. at that place are many types of war, however this essay leave behind focus on military war in particular. public utility company(prenominal) theory and Just War The theory of utility is one way to rationalise war. The utilitarian approach is defined as the pursuit of the greatest nigh(a) of nightclub for the greatest number f hoi polloi in society. There are 2 branches of utility theory act and rule.Act utilitarianism looks closely at the Consequences of the act Of war in rule to guarantee engaging in war. Rule utilitarianism will only condone war when the reason for entry a war is just in itself, is based on best intentions and not for selfish reasons. In essence, act utilitarianism can be summarized as the residuums justifying the means, date rule utilitarianism can be summarized as genuine intentions justifying the means. For instance, the confederate Forces declaring war on Germanys invasion of their gibbous as well as on their anti-Semitic activities is an example of utilitarianism in action.The declaration of war was to save further harm to the world even if it did mean a strong loss to the Allied Forces by engaging in such actions. The stop over of the German terror as well as the protection Of the persecuted justified the means through which this was achieved. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism while easily distinguishable in theory, is much harder to apply in concrete life. The example given above can be categorized chthonian both types of utility theory. The protection of a large persecuted number of tribe justified entering into war against the anti- Semitic administration in Germany.Viewing it in this man ner allows rule utilitarianism to lessen into play. At the same time, looking at the consequences of war -? which would be the saving of not only Jews, precisely too the prevention of invasion of other countries in Europe allows act utilitarianism to justify the Allied Forces declaration on war on Nazi Germany. Utility theory does run the risk of being manipulated and abused and has been used by terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists to justify the use of rower and force for jihad or what they call, holy war.However, it must be creased that utility theory condones war only if it causes the greatest veracious for the greatest number of society. compensate if jihad is considered to be the greatest good, it is only from the perspective of a subscribe few people with biased opinions. Hence, a terrorists defense of war via utility theory cannot be said to be a true justification at all. Be it act or rule utilitarianism, so persistent as the ends result in the greatest good for t he largest number of people in society and are made with the best intentions in mind, war is justified.Cost-benefit Analysis and Just War The benefits should outweigh the costs in order to justify engaging in war. Cost-benefit analysis is a way of weighing the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives. It helps us determine whether an approach was expense the adoption and practice in terms of benefits in labor, time, Cost savings and so on. It is largely considered an sparing analysis and is an approach that can be taken when determining whether a war is justified because of the high socio-economic costs involved in war.A good way to go about analyzing this would be to look at a case study of the Iraq war. The Gulf war resulted in 220,000 Iraqi casualties and a few hundred thousand wounded Iraqis. The costs of war amounted to 6 trillion US dollars. These numbers are neither small nor insignificant. The benefits, however, are the exact opposite. As far as tangible benefits go, the Iraqi parsimony saw a slight growth in its GAP since the end of the war. Part of this, is a windfall due to high oil prices but if the war had not taken place, oil sanctions imposed on Iraq would have severely curtailed Iraqi oil sale.This would have further crushed the already dying economy pre-war. Of course, since Cost-Benefit analysis is primarily economic in nature, on paper, the growth in Iraqs GAP is touted by pro-war candidates as being worth the effort. However it would be ridiculous to imagine that Iraqs economy would have handsome enough to cover the costs of war even, much less to truly grow enough to recover and sustain the country post-war. Further, as cost-benefit analysis too should include some elements of intangibility, one must take note Of the accessory costs that came along with the war.Besides the devastation and disease that struck Iraq, neighbors Iran also saw acceleration in its nuclear programmed because it saw that as the only way to prevent an imminen t US invasion. This is not good for the orbicular economy because it makes the Middle East a very dangerous place. Further, thither is a high continuing rate of violence in Iraq because society sees it as the only form of protection for them. Of course, regime change and the dying of Sadism Hussein must be considered in the benefit analysis but despite that, Iraq is still in shambles -? both economically as well as socially.Overall, a cost-benefit analysis allows us another probability to evaluate a war and to decide if it can be justified. In the example of Iraq, we can see how it can be used to leaven that it cannot be justified. Counter argument However, despite these two analytical methods of justifying war, they come with a caveat. The caveat being that they are only used to justify war when negotiations have failed between parties all self-possessed methods have been already exhausted and war is the final and only option available to them. Unfortunately, this is not alway s the case.Many a time, countries prepare for war while negotiations are ongoing. worse still, they may not even engage in any peaceful forms of collaboration or settlement at all. The notions of war always reside at the back of countries minds. The Cold War may seem deal a successful instance where there were no missiles or bombs set down on either the USSR or the US. However, there was a war stock-still and a war which lasted 30 years. Despite supposed peaceful negotiations between the two superpowers, the thought of missile warfare was always at the back of their minds.It would not be far-fetched to imagine that this severely impacted the success Of their discussions. One cannot to the full and calmly negotiate with a finger on the trigger. It was merely a combination of luck, timing and the right set of leaders that prevented the outbreak of a disastrous third world war. Conclusion War can be justified through two methods utility theory and cost-benefit analysis. These al low an impalpable and tangible account of the ways in which a war can be explained as being necessary.