Free Essays on The Just War Theory

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A just war can only be fought to rectify a wrong suffered. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success and morally right intentions. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. The ulimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. The weapons used in war must differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissable targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. If soldiers use discrimination, proportionality, and correct methods they will have kept their fighting as conservative as possible. Soldiers should only target those who are engaged in harm. Thus, when they take aim, soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population, which is morally immune from direct and intentional attack, and those legitimate military, political and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm. While some civilian casualties are excusable, it is wrong to take deliberate aim at civilian targets. An example would be saturation bombing of residential areas. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are usually seen as being out of proportion to legitimate military ends. Soldiers may not use weapons or methods such as: mass rape campaigns; genocide or ethnic cleansing; torturing captured enemy soldiers; and using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled, like chemical or biological age nts.... Free Essays on The Just War Theory Free Essays on The Just War Theory A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A just war can only be fought to rectify a wrong suffered. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success and morally right intentions. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. The ulimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. The weapons used in war must differentiate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissable targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. If soldiers use discrimination, proportionality, and correct methods they will have kept their fighting as conservative as possible. Soldiers should only target those who are engaged in harm. Thus, when they take aim, soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population, which is morally immune from direct and intentional attack, and those legitimate military, political and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm. While some civilian casualties are excusable, it is wrong to take deliberate aim at civilian targets. An example would be saturation bombing of residential areas. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are usually seen as being out of proportion to legitimate military ends. Soldiers may not use weapons or methods such as: mass rape campaigns; genocide or ethnic cleansing; torturing captured enemy soldiers; and using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled, like chemical or biological age nts....

Driver License vs. Drivers License

Driver License vs. Drivers License Driver License vs. Driver’s License Driver License vs. Driver’s License By Maeve Maddox A reader questions the use of the possessive in such constructions as â€Å"doctor’s appointment† and â€Å"driver’s license†: If I take out my state-granted proof of authority to drive an automobile in Oklahoma, the title on that wallet-sized document is Driver License, not Drivers License. I hear a lot of people say that they have a doctors appointment, when, in fact, they have a doctor appointment. It seems to me that the possessive is inappropriate to things such as a Driver License or a doctor appointment, unless, in the latter case, it is the doctor himself talking about his appointment. What do you think? I think that where the use of the English possessive is concerned, trying to make immutable rules about it is like trying to herd cats. The card that permits me to drive in the state of Arkansas until 2017 says â€Å"Driver’s License,† but I saw the photo of an Arkansas license posted at the English Stack Exchange that shows â€Å"Drivers License.† Perhaps it was printed before 2007 when apostrophes came to the attention of the Arkansas General Assembly. The body passed a resolution to the effect that the possessive of Arkansas must be written Arkansas’s and not, as the AP Stylebook would have it, Arkansas’. Maybe that’s when someone decided that while they were codifying apostrophes, â€Å"Drivers License† should be â€Å"Driver’s License.† Since my opinion is being sought, I’ll say that I think it would make more sense to call it a â€Å"driving license† to match â€Å"hunting license† and â€Å"fishing license.† As that’s not going to happen in the United States, I’ll vote for â€Å"driver’s license.† According to the Ngram Viewer, I’m with the majority: â€Å"driver’s license† and â€Å"doctor’s appointment† outstrip â€Å"driver license† and â€Å"doctor appointment† by a mile. Rules are useful, but usage rules. What’s on your driver’s license? Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:30 Religious Terms You Should KnowLatin Plural EndingsPreposition Review #1: Chance of vs. Chance for