Controls the Johnson – it is Michael Walzer – Johnson – to
Doesn’t allow historically
way violence is shows in the enforce just
for wanton acts reflective product
used and who it judgement and through both
of violence of cultures
reaction of justification and
is used against experiences
society application
Ramset, O’Brien Johnson – not Johnson –shouldn’t Johnson – we don’t Mill – by saying war is
need to use nuclear wrong you make
and Walzer all irrelevant now ignore the wisdom
weapons when we personal safety a
accept it is a of those who
despite nuclear have other
lower pleasure and
moral tradition of created just war ignore higher
weapons theory effective means
justified war pleasure of justice
Johnson – humans Johnson – we are Walzer – justification Johnson – just war Johnson – can’t
have to deal with for fighting lies in the ensures any force outlaw normal war
not in ideal world
conflicting duties recognition of evil used protects
– need it to just because of the
therefore just war is a and revulsion against
values of existence of
necessary means of protect values of it
fundamental worth nuclear weapons
protection the real world
Johnson – just Johnson – Johnson – for as Jeff McMahan – Jeff McMahan –
long as we have outcomes of war are
war doesn’t shouldn’t reject too simplistic,
war we must too difficult to predict
believe in the use war because of unrealistic and so it’s not clear if
protect non-
of nuclear fear of nuclear ambiguous peace will result or
combatants
weapons weapons likelihood of success
McMahan – If civilians Perhaps a soldier
Problems
notes it’s difficult provoke a war/ fighting a just
to control
deciding who violence are they cause should be Pacifism
individuals in an is a just target innocent?
given a wider scope
for using violence
army
Erasmus – ‘indeed RE: Johnson – why
what realm can be protect the Against For Just
weighed against the innocent when
life, the blood, of so
many thousand
could use time to Just War War
prevent war?
men?’
Lauren Stokes © 2015
Bertrand Russell
Main commitment – the horrors of modern warfare (civilian population being considered targets)
‘renders war obsolete as an instrument of policy’
Pacifism is ‘not a principle to be deduced from Christ’s teaching or from the categorical imperative
but a course of action recommended, in certain circumstances, by common sense.’
Claim the specific destructiveness and indiscrimateness of war make the idea of justice seem
irrelevant.
Nations are better off not fighting than meeting force with force
o ‘defended by their own defencelessness’
Political malevolence normally the result of previous war related to grief.
The causes of war are in large measure psychological – so the solution should be too.
One positive side effect of stock piling nuclear weapons is ‘mutually assured destruction’
Survival should be everyone’s biggest interest
We cannot trust MAD
If one person is willing to use nuclear weapons then they have control of the world
Governments should be powered by motives of welfare and common interest.
Shouldn't fight was as survival should be everybody’s common interest
Common survival should be upreme aim of policy on both sides.
, Anscombe
In a world where people break the law,
we need people to stop them:
Dissension is the refusal o If we agree it is fair and
to follow the law/leaders necessary that we use coercive
force e.g. violence then we
‘must equally oppose external
enemies.’
Lauren Stokes © 2015 ‘The present day conception of
aggression is a bad one, why should it
Ramsey be wrong to strike the first blow in a
Tried to get Christian’s to stop being against nuclear weapons struggle? The only question is who is
Nuclear weapons should only be used to attack an invading right?’
army that invade your country/other country you’re legally ‘militia or rather malitia’ as said by St
bound to protect Anselm
Use on citizens isn’t legitimate War is vicious but that doesn’t mean
The threat of harming citizens with nuclear weapons ensures war in itself is wrong. The principle of
it won’t happen. war for justice is good.
Governments should maintain ‘studied ambiguity’ The innocent need to be protected
o Keep it unclear if we have or will use nuclear o ‘The right to attack belongs to
weapons. rulers, precisely because of that
Recognised we have to plan how we would use these threat of violent coercion
weapons. exercised by those in authority
o ‘counter-force nuclear war is the upper limit of which is essential to the
rationality, politically purposive military action’ existence of human societies.’
This shows recognition of the insanity of We can make a distinction between
nuclear weapons. war and murder.
We cannot ‘preclude the need to think about believable fight o Murder is the killing of the
the war plans’ innocent
War has no ends and no limits o Pacifism has removed this
Nuclear attacks as a threat on civilians is wrong, only the distinction.
armed forces should e threatened Nuclear weapons are only used for
o Threatening or intending to kill civilians is a bad as villainous hatred and do not distinguish
doing it. between the innocent.
Using nuclear weapons on an opponent’s cities, even if they Lackey
hit our cities first shows ‘conditional willingness’ to do evil. Threats and hostage taking are the real
Walzers and Amstutz criteria Kant issue of war:
for pre-emptive strikes: Humans are treated as o Hostage taking is not removing
1. Existence of intention means not ends people from society but having
to injure Contradiction in the law of their lives threatened by war.
2. Undertaking of military the will and the law of o If we are hostages in this sense
preparation by nature then we are all hostages to
opponent Preserve one’s life is a potential mass murders, time
3. Is there a significant maxim – therefore self- and illness as all of these are
risk? defence is justified. threats to the people.
McCoy’s and the Hatfield’s
Sofaer’s condition for pre-emptive strikes Each family hates each other’s.
1. Nature and magnitude of threat Both families possess hand grenades
2. Likelihood of threat being realised which they have no defence against.
3. Have alternatives been used and exhausted? Each family kidnaps a child from the
4. Only if consistent with UN charter and other international other family. To each child an explosive
laws device is strapped which will detonate
if a loud noise is made e.g. a grenade
going off.
There is also a chance that the hand
grenades could explode killing the child
too.
Neither of them will throw the
grenades
, Lauren Stokes © 2015
Of a thief is caught
Eye for an eye,
breaking in and is A life for a
struck so that he dies, and tooth for
the defender is not life tooth
guilty of bloodshed
If someone strikes Love your Love your enemies and
you on the right pray for those who
neighbour and persecute you, that
cheek, turn to him
hate your you may be sons of
the other also your father in heaven
enemies
Wealth is treacherous, and
For the love of
Put down the arrogant are never at
rest. They open their money is the
mouths as wide as the
your swords grave, and like death, they root of all kinds
are never satisfied. In their
greed they have gathered. of evil
And the way Never pay back Never take your own
revenge, beloved,
of peace they evil for evil to
but leave room for
do not know anyone the wrath of God
If your enemy if hungry Do not overcome Believe war is
feed him, and if he is
by evil but incompatible with
thirsty give him a drink,
for in doing so you will overcome evil with the teachings and
heap burning coals upon good example of Christ
his head
, Methodists Baptists
Reject war as first moral duty of all Duty to seek peace
nations is peace and peaceful Must do all they can to end war
methods should be used to solve Way to end war is through the
arguments spirit and his love and teaching
Militarisation of society must be
challenged and stopped
The manufacturing, sale and
deployment of armaments must
be reduced and controlled Catholic Church
Production, possession, or use of Does not help society
nuclear weapons should be It is murderous – the fifth
condemned commandment forbids murder
Support conscientious objectors. War is evil and includes injustice
Lauren Stokes © 2015
Insists everyone to prayer and
taken action to top war
‘as long as the danger of war
Put your sword back persists and there is no
into its place. For all international authority with the
who take the sword necessary competence and power,
governments cannot be denied
will perish by the
the right of lawful self-defence,
sword. once all peace efforts have failed’
A time to love, and a Blessed are the
time to hate; a time peacemakers, for
for war and a time they shall be called
for peace sons of God
Doesn’t allow historically
way violence is shows in the enforce just
for wanton acts reflective product
used and who it judgement and through both
of violence of cultures
reaction of justification and
is used against experiences
society application
Ramset, O’Brien Johnson – not Johnson –shouldn’t Johnson – we don’t Mill – by saying war is
need to use nuclear wrong you make
and Walzer all irrelevant now ignore the wisdom
weapons when we personal safety a
accept it is a of those who
despite nuclear have other
lower pleasure and
moral tradition of created just war ignore higher
weapons theory effective means
justified war pleasure of justice
Johnson – humans Johnson – we are Walzer – justification Johnson – just war Johnson – can’t
have to deal with for fighting lies in the ensures any force outlaw normal war
not in ideal world
conflicting duties recognition of evil used protects
– need it to just because of the
therefore just war is a and revulsion against
values of existence of
necessary means of protect values of it
fundamental worth nuclear weapons
protection the real world
Johnson – just Johnson – Johnson – for as Jeff McMahan – Jeff McMahan –
long as we have outcomes of war are
war doesn’t shouldn’t reject too simplistic,
war we must too difficult to predict
believe in the use war because of unrealistic and so it’s not clear if
protect non-
of nuclear fear of nuclear ambiguous peace will result or
combatants
weapons weapons likelihood of success
McMahan – If civilians Perhaps a soldier
Problems
notes it’s difficult provoke a war/ fighting a just
to control
deciding who violence are they cause should be Pacifism
individuals in an is a just target innocent?
given a wider scope
for using violence
army
Erasmus – ‘indeed RE: Johnson – why
what realm can be protect the Against For Just
weighed against the innocent when
life, the blood, of so
many thousand
could use time to Just War War
prevent war?
men?’
Lauren Stokes © 2015
Bertrand Russell
Main commitment – the horrors of modern warfare (civilian population being considered targets)
‘renders war obsolete as an instrument of policy’
Pacifism is ‘not a principle to be deduced from Christ’s teaching or from the categorical imperative
but a course of action recommended, in certain circumstances, by common sense.’
Claim the specific destructiveness and indiscrimateness of war make the idea of justice seem
irrelevant.
Nations are better off not fighting than meeting force with force
o ‘defended by their own defencelessness’
Political malevolence normally the result of previous war related to grief.
The causes of war are in large measure psychological – so the solution should be too.
One positive side effect of stock piling nuclear weapons is ‘mutually assured destruction’
Survival should be everyone’s biggest interest
We cannot trust MAD
If one person is willing to use nuclear weapons then they have control of the world
Governments should be powered by motives of welfare and common interest.
Shouldn't fight was as survival should be everybody’s common interest
Common survival should be upreme aim of policy on both sides.
, Anscombe
In a world where people break the law,
we need people to stop them:
Dissension is the refusal o If we agree it is fair and
to follow the law/leaders necessary that we use coercive
force e.g. violence then we
‘must equally oppose external
enemies.’
Lauren Stokes © 2015 ‘The present day conception of
aggression is a bad one, why should it
Ramsey be wrong to strike the first blow in a
Tried to get Christian’s to stop being against nuclear weapons struggle? The only question is who is
Nuclear weapons should only be used to attack an invading right?’
army that invade your country/other country you’re legally ‘militia or rather malitia’ as said by St
bound to protect Anselm
Use on citizens isn’t legitimate War is vicious but that doesn’t mean
The threat of harming citizens with nuclear weapons ensures war in itself is wrong. The principle of
it won’t happen. war for justice is good.
Governments should maintain ‘studied ambiguity’ The innocent need to be protected
o Keep it unclear if we have or will use nuclear o ‘The right to attack belongs to
weapons. rulers, precisely because of that
Recognised we have to plan how we would use these threat of violent coercion
weapons. exercised by those in authority
o ‘counter-force nuclear war is the upper limit of which is essential to the
rationality, politically purposive military action’ existence of human societies.’
This shows recognition of the insanity of We can make a distinction between
nuclear weapons. war and murder.
We cannot ‘preclude the need to think about believable fight o Murder is the killing of the
the war plans’ innocent
War has no ends and no limits o Pacifism has removed this
Nuclear attacks as a threat on civilians is wrong, only the distinction.
armed forces should e threatened Nuclear weapons are only used for
o Threatening or intending to kill civilians is a bad as villainous hatred and do not distinguish
doing it. between the innocent.
Using nuclear weapons on an opponent’s cities, even if they Lackey
hit our cities first shows ‘conditional willingness’ to do evil. Threats and hostage taking are the real
Walzers and Amstutz criteria Kant issue of war:
for pre-emptive strikes: Humans are treated as o Hostage taking is not removing
1. Existence of intention means not ends people from society but having
to injure Contradiction in the law of their lives threatened by war.
2. Undertaking of military the will and the law of o If we are hostages in this sense
preparation by nature then we are all hostages to
opponent Preserve one’s life is a potential mass murders, time
3. Is there a significant maxim – therefore self- and illness as all of these are
risk? defence is justified. threats to the people.
McCoy’s and the Hatfield’s
Sofaer’s condition for pre-emptive strikes Each family hates each other’s.
1. Nature and magnitude of threat Both families possess hand grenades
2. Likelihood of threat being realised which they have no defence against.
3. Have alternatives been used and exhausted? Each family kidnaps a child from the
4. Only if consistent with UN charter and other international other family. To each child an explosive
laws device is strapped which will detonate
if a loud noise is made e.g. a grenade
going off.
There is also a chance that the hand
grenades could explode killing the child
too.
Neither of them will throw the
grenades
, Lauren Stokes © 2015
Of a thief is caught
Eye for an eye,
breaking in and is A life for a
struck so that he dies, and tooth for
the defender is not life tooth
guilty of bloodshed
If someone strikes Love your Love your enemies and
you on the right pray for those who
neighbour and persecute you, that
cheek, turn to him
hate your you may be sons of
the other also your father in heaven
enemies
Wealth is treacherous, and
For the love of
Put down the arrogant are never at
rest. They open their money is the
mouths as wide as the
your swords grave, and like death, they root of all kinds
are never satisfied. In their
greed they have gathered. of evil
And the way Never pay back Never take your own
revenge, beloved,
of peace they evil for evil to
but leave room for
do not know anyone the wrath of God
If your enemy if hungry Do not overcome Believe war is
feed him, and if he is
by evil but incompatible with
thirsty give him a drink,
for in doing so you will overcome evil with the teachings and
heap burning coals upon good example of Christ
his head
, Methodists Baptists
Reject war as first moral duty of all Duty to seek peace
nations is peace and peaceful Must do all they can to end war
methods should be used to solve Way to end war is through the
arguments spirit and his love and teaching
Militarisation of society must be
challenged and stopped
The manufacturing, sale and
deployment of armaments must
be reduced and controlled Catholic Church
Production, possession, or use of Does not help society
nuclear weapons should be It is murderous – the fifth
condemned commandment forbids murder
Support conscientious objectors. War is evil and includes injustice
Lauren Stokes © 2015
Insists everyone to prayer and
taken action to top war
‘as long as the danger of war
Put your sword back persists and there is no
into its place. For all international authority with the
who take the sword necessary competence and power,
governments cannot be denied
will perish by the
the right of lawful self-defence,
sword. once all peace efforts have failed’
A time to love, and a Blessed are the
time to hate; a time peacemakers, for
for war and a time they shall be called
for peace sons of God
