essay on is war ever justified

Is War Ever Morally Justified? Essay

When discussing the domain of war, it is necessary to stress its ethical component. Almost any war implies mass and institutional violence, which has a purposeful character and assumes a strain between countries. It is crucial that this phenomenon is deeply rooted in history since wars have been perceived as the most common form of communication between states, which is confirmed by historical reality. However, this mode of interaction has also been regarded as a strongly negative format of interstate relations. The purpose of this paper is to provide arguments that a moral justification of war is impossible based on a critical discussion of theories supporting the ethical justification of warfare and prove that they have inherent contradictions and are likely to lead to further negative manifestations and consequences.

In order to understand the arguments that make it possible to justify war from the standpoint of morality, it is crucial to analyze the history of this phenomenon. Initially, a war was considered acceptable if the participants in this process acted in accordance with the existing rules and had justified their reasons for unleashing the military conflict (Kovac, 2013). If these conditions were not followed, the conflict was considered barbarous. The distinction between a morally justified and an immoral war depended on the purpose of initiating it and the side against which the warfare was unleashed. Some experts in the field claimed that wars derived from the social order of the world (Kovac, 2013).

For example, some theorists believed that war was a necessary state of humanity. Opponents of this position argued that people were benign beings by their nature who could come to unanimity without the use of force and violence. However, a social space and its structure pushed states to fight with each other. Although these beliefs were diametrically opposed, they revealed a general understanding of wars, which implied that they could be morally justified since they were a prerequisite for the development of the world.

One of the fundamental approaches that consider similar arguments to justify the use of military action is realism. In this theory, the emphasis is placed on the political aims of war. The conduct of war is not only a seizure of territory and victory over the enemy but also an unsurpassed opportunity to have an impact on the opponent’s consciousness. Justification of war from this standpoint lies in social antagonisms that reach the level of interstate contradictions (Morkevičius, 2015). Consequently, in this approach, war has a rational explanation and is an inevitable given.

However, when arguing whether or not realism allows justifying war from a moral perspective, it is necessary to note that this theory breeds such concepts as “war” and “morality” on different sides of the barricades (Morkevičius, 2015). Thus, a military action cannot be considered from the position of morality. Due to the fact that war is regarded in the context of political action and affects interests of state structures, realism cannot justify war from a moral point of view.

Another direction that justifies the use of military action is the theory of militarism. In general, it is a reactionary policy of strengthening military power and intensifying military preparations. It is interesting that this theory has a specific discourse on the moral justification of military action (Morkevičius, 2015). In particular, war is compatible with morality in the sense that it does not allow society to regress. For example, when justifying a military conflict, experts supporting this position suggest that war stimulates the development or emergence of moral values.

It is reasonable to assume that without wars the evolution of such domain as justice would be impossible. However, such an argument can be rejected as this approach proclaims the apotheosis of war (Morkevičius, 2015). In this connection, in society, a threat of total war of annihilation is increasing.

Interestingly enough, there is a position that fundamentally opposes any wars, which is pacifism. No military confrontation can be ethically justified, and the supporters of pacifism morally condemn any armed struggle since it inevitably leads to human casualties. Therefore, this theory strives for a peaceful conflict resolution. Initiation of war is rejected as a means to resolve international disagreements since it affects the lives of civilians (Ryan, 2013). Moreover, a pivotal argument in this approach is that people also should not resort to violence in response to the evil exhibited towards them.

Despite the fact that pacifism morally denounces wars and any justifications of them, this view is subjective in some cases. Although pacifism pursues a humanistic worldview, this approach contains a contradiction on a fundamental level. There are different modes of pacifism ranging from its absolute form, which views wars as univocal evil, to pacifism that has a conditional character. In the latter case, violence is likely to be morally justified under certain circumstances (Ryan, 2013).

Moreover, these factors are determined by specific political conditions. Consequently, conditional pacifism also has a connection with theories that support a moral justification of wars. Notably, having reviewed the arguments that either defend or reject the moral component of war, it becomes possible to observe the counter movement of militarism and pacifism towards each other (Ryan, 2013). At the confluence of some circumstances, pacifism can justify the need for violence against people while militarism can exhibit an opposite tendency.

Just war theory is another popular approach, which argues that it is possible to justify the emergence and conduct of a military action from the ethical point of view. The concept is a compilation of certain aspects of pacifism and militarism. The concept is based on two fundamental principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello (Sussmann, 2013). According to the first principle, war can be morally justified if certain rational causes are present and violence is applied to ensure international order and security. At the same time, war should be wielded by legitimate authority. Moreover, a military action can be justified if it does not imply implementation of bad intentions.

An important factor that this theory includes is that both sides should participate in a war only if they are not doomed to failure (the forces are distributed evenly among the opponents). Also, another principle presupposing the moral justification of war is that it should be an extreme measure to which a state resorts (when diplomatic measures prove to be ineffective) (Sussmann, 2013). From the standpoint of the second fundamental principle ( jus in bello ), a military conflict can be ethically viable when a pragmatic principle of a probability of success is observed. An aspect of paramount importance that this theory has is that a military conflict should prevent a greater evil.

On the one hand, in this concept, it is possible to discern a rational grain. Just war theory does not denounce war initially as pacifism does (Ryan, 2013). Also, in this concept, military conflicts are not glorified as in the theory of militarism. Moreover, unlike realism, just war theory does not subordinate a military action to the political necessity but requires a moral basis (Sussmann, 2013). On the other hand, it can be argued that war cannot be morally justified when relying on the principles of this concept since they have high flexibility; therefore, they lose their objectivity.

The general purpose of just war theory lies in its potential to maintain violence at a morally acceptable level. However, jus ad bellum and jus in bello contradict each other in their core. Importantly, the discrepancies can be detected in the conceptual apparatus of the theory. Moreover, they reveal a practical inconsistency of the concept.

An example of the way just war theory exhibits contradictory arguments lies in its interpretation of legitimate power. Notably, every state has a legitimate government; however, in the case when civilians rebel against it in order to establish a new government, it becomes impossible to determine what power should be considered legitimate (Sussmann, 2013). Thus, the argumentation proposed in the theory leads to a paradox.

Moreover, the understanding of evil proposed in the concept also contains a contradiction. For example, according to this approach, good can fight evil using force. In addition, each of the opponents can offer their understanding of evil and initiate a military conflict to achieve justice (Sussmann, 2013). Thus, despite the fact that just war theory provides stronger arguments than such approaches as realism, militarism, and pacifism do, this concept also does not offer normative provisions that allow justifying war from a moral perspective.

Comparing the arguments provided above, it can be stated that wars cannot be morally justified for a number of reasons. The discussed theories and their arguments focus on human rights or the need of countries to subordinate military conflicts to a political necessity (Kovac, 2013). However, such a worldview revives the theological meaning of war, which has already had severe consequences. In particular, such argumentation makes it possible to justify humanitarian intervention from the position of morality.

Large-scale negative outcomes of such a reasoning can be observed in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and some other states. Moreover, these arguments lead to the emergence of hybrid wars, which are global police operations in their core (Sussmann, 2013). In addition, when substantiating wars from the ethical perspective, radicals receive a moral right to proclaim their supreme ethical value as the cause of war. It will lead to the fact that disparate values will inevitably resonate with each other.

Thus, it can be concluded that wars cannot be morally justified. Despite the fact that different theories provide multiple arguments to prove a polar worldview, these assumptions often contain contradiction. Many of the approaches discussed in the paper rely on the historically formed idea that war is an essential state of humanity since it allows the world to develop, and warfare is acceptable when it relies on some common principles. Nonetheless, this mode of justification is not related to morality. However, more importantly, the points provided in different theories leave room to subjectivism and interpretation, which can evolve in further negative manifestations such as wars veiled under humanitarian interventions or other overtones.

Kovac, J. (2013). Science, ethics and war: A pacifist’s perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (2), 449-460.

Morkevičius, V. (2015). Power and order: The shared logics of realism and just war theory. International Studies Quarterly, 59 (1), 11-22.

Ryan, C. (2013). Pacifism, just war, and self-defense. Philosophia, 41 (4), 977-1005.

Sussmann, N. (2013). Can just war theory delegitimate terrorism? European Journal of Political Theory, 12 (4), 425-446.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, October 31). Is War Ever Morally Justified? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/

"Is War Ever Morally Justified?" IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Is War Ever Morally Justified'. 31 October.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Is War Ever Morally Justified?" October 31, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/.

1. IvyPanda . "Is War Ever Morally Justified?" October 31, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Is War Ever Morally Justified?" October 31, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/.

• Militarism in China and Its Advantages
• US Militarism: War Brides and Internment
• Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Theory of Just War
• Torture as Morally Unjustifiable Practice
• Ethics and Social Responsibility Aspects
• Planned Parenthood and Women’s Rights
• Lethal Autonomous Weapons and Virtue Theory
• Is Abortion Morally Justified?

Is war ever morally justified?

A new book revives the debate over just war theory

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

Anyone who cares about questions of war and peace — and who wishes to think deeply about how to assess those questions morally — should buy and promptly read Nigel Biggar's In Defense of War . Over the past few decades, many authors have written articles and books attempting to construct an apparatus for judging the morality of war. I know of none that approaches Biggar's book in lucidity and thoroughness. Readers who absorb and apply Biggar's criteria for assessing wars will have a clear and cogent way of judging whether past or future wars deserve to be considered just or unjust — by which Biggar means morally justified or unjustified. That's one reason why Biggar's book deserves a wide and responsive readership.

Here is another: Precisely by doing his job so thoroughly and elegantly, Biggar inadvertently demonstrates more fully than any previous author that just war thinking, even at its very best, is an intellectual, moral, and theological fraud.

Okay, it's not completely fraudulent. The attempt to establish criteria for judging conduct within a war that's already been declared ( ius in bello ) has had a morally salutary influence on how the U.S. military, for example, conducts itself in battle. The Pentagon now works very hard to ensure that, in any given mission, our military uses no more force than is necessary to vindicate the cause and that it refrains from intentionally killing civilians. That we now expect our armed forces to abide by these rules of war — and judge other states severely when their soldiers fail to do the same — is unquestioningly a good thing. And it's a development to which we owe a debt of gratitude to those who have worked to revive just war thinking, adapting its premodern moral calculus for the age of total war.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

But that's not where most of the intellectual action is found among those seeking to rehabilitate just war thinking today. That action is focused on the criteria for determining when it's just to go to war in the first place ( ius ad bellum ). This is certainly what Biggar, a professor of moral and pastoral theology at Christ Church, Oxford, cares about. And it is what makes just war thinking so very appealing to foreign policy hawks of various stripes — neoconservatives, liberal interventionists, and realists who define American national interests very broadly.

This is also what makes just war thinking a scam. To see why, consider the six criteria just war theorists, including Biggar, use to determine when a war is morally justified. The war must be undertaken with the intention of establishing a just peace. It must be defensive. It must be aimed at protecting the innocent against unjust aggression. It must have a reasonable chance of success. It must be declared and waged by a competent governing authority. And it must be undertaken as a last resort. If the war meets these six criteria, it can be considered morally justified.

Let's leave aside the question of whether such a judgment should be considered Christian. (I will examine that in a subsequent column.) Here I'm mainly interested in a narrower issue: Is there any realistic scenario in which, judged by these criteria, the 21st-century United States would start and wage a war that it didn't consider just?

I submit that the answer is an unequivocal no. We always have a moral rationale for undertaking military action. We always consider our actions defensive (even if the aggression hasn't happened yet) and aimed at protecting the innocent. We always think we have a reasonable chance of success. We always consider ourselves to be a competent authority. And we always claim to have waited as long as possible to act.

If Americans were the rapacious marauders Noam Chomsky claims we are — if, for example, we were contemplating an invasion of Canada to annex the tar sands oil fields for our own use — then ad bellum criteria might be a useful means of rendering judgment of our actions, reining them in, and directing them toward more moral ends. (Maybe Biggar's publisher should send a gratis copy of his book to Vladimir Putin.) But of course the United States doesn't behave that way. We're inclined to start or join wars ( lots and lots of them) for the loftiest of reasons. Given this fact, ad bellum considerations primarily provide an additional moral and theological imprimatur for actions we would be inclined to do anyway .

The U.S.'s default setting is to careen toward conflict, but Biggar believes it's necessary to step harder on the gas because he fears that a "presumption against war" has taken hold in the Western world. (Reading his book, you'd think that the foreign policy establishments of the U.S. and U.K. were dominated by pacifists.) In Biggar's view, this presumption focuses too single-mindedly on the "terrible evils" wrought by war while downplaying the fact that not going to war permits evils of its own.

True enough: evil arises from both acts of commission and acts of omission.

There are just two problems.

First, as I've argued before , states have different moral obligations than individuals. When an individual refuses to come to the aid of a victim of injustice, we rightly judge him harshly for failing to fulfill his moral duty. But the primary and overriding duty of a government is to uphold the nation's common good and defend its citizens against external harm or attack. If that sounds selfish, that's because it is. Our government's highest duty is to us . It can have no duty to the citizens of another nation.

Second, to insist that policymakers base the decision about whether to go to war on the supposition that a failure to act will result in worse moral atrocities than if they do act is to place a black box of uncertainty at the core of deliberation. And that can lead to massive blunders, as we saw very vividly in the arguments leading up to the start of the Iraq War in 2003 — arguments that Biggar exhaustively reconstructs in an unfortunate 69-page chapter that ends with him pronouncing that, all things considered, the war was morally justified.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and simply declare that any moral calculus that gives such a result is effectively worthless. One would think that at this late date it would be unnecessary to list the reasons why. But apparently not. Here, then, are merely a few, using Biggar's own just war criteria as a method of evaluation.

1. There was no atrocity underway in Iraq during the spring of 2003, and so there were no innocents to protect from unjust aggression. (Unless, of course, we expand the term "atrocity" to include the injustices endured by everyone living under a tyrant, in which case the list of just wars would be very long indeed.)

2. As Saddam Hussein's actions during the 1991 Gulf War made clear, he was deterrable . (The fact that after the 2003 invasion he was found to possess no weapons of mass destruction provides further, retrospective justification of this view.) This means that war was not undertaken as a last resort.

3. The fact that he was deterrable and possessed no weapons of mass destruction means that he posed no significant threat to us or our allies. This means that the war was not defensive.

4. Estimates of violent deaths in Iraq as a direct or indirect result of the invasion and occupation of the country range from just over 100,000 to more than 1 million. Those deaths continue , by the way, right down to the present . Even if we side with the lower estimates and assume roughly 100,000 civilian deaths, there is no plausible scenario in which anywhere close to that number of people would have been killed if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. So much for evils of omission.

A final consideration. Americans sometimes worry about the risks and costs involved in the United States acting as the world's policeman. But what advocates of just war reasoning have in mind is far more sweeping. They would empower the U.S. (along with the U.K. and any other nation willing to pitch in — remember the "coalition of the willing"?) to serve as nothing less than the world's moral judge, jury, and executioner, meting out punishment for transgressions of justice. (Read Biggar on how war can and should have a "punitive" dimension.)

This is an extremely bad idea. Americans are already too inclined to believe in their own righteousness. Their tendency toward what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the perpetual utterance of self-applause" often leads them to make foolish mistakes. They certainly don't need theologians telling them that their good intentions entitle them, over the inevitable objections of billions of their would-be subjects, to appoint themselves the world's benevolent despot.

Nothing good can come of that.

In a future column, I will examine the religious sources of just war thinking and ask whether it deserves to be considered Christian at all.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com . He is also a former contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of The Theocons and The Religious Test .

Cartoons Artists take on checklists, ice creams, and more

By The Week US Published 19 May 24

The Week Recommends This Spanish spot has fantastic restaurants "rooted in the region's distinctive produce"

By The Week UK Published 19 May 24

The Week's daily crossword

By The Week Staff Published 19 May 24

Speed Read The court rejected a conservative-backed challenge to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 17 May 24

Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life

By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published 10 April 24

Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"

By Peter Weber, The Week US Published 27 March 24

In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?

By Grayson Quay Published 13 February 24

Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published 17 January 24

Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day

By The Week UK Published 16 January 24

Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal

By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated 30 November 23

Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators

By The Week UK Published 25 November 23

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Home — Essay Samples — War — Effects of War — When is War Justified

A Discussion of When War Can Be Justified

• Categories: Effects of War Just War Theory

About this sample

Words: 1413 |

Published: Mar 28, 2019

Words: 1413 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Table of contents

Introduction: is war ever justified, reasons of war: justifiable and non-justifiable, works cited.

• Rickaby, J. (1892). The Ethics of War. Longmans, Green, and Co.
• Walzer, M. (2006). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books.
• Orend, B. (2005). War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
• McMahan, J. (2009). Killing in War. Oxford University Press.
• Rodin, D. (2002). War and Self-Defense. Oxford University Press.
• Walzer, M. (2015). On Just and Unjust Wars: Revised Edition (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
• Johnson, J. T., & Snider, T. L. (2014). Just War and Terrorism: The End of a Myth. IVP Academic.
• Fabre, C. (2008). Cosmopolitan War. Oxford University Press.
• McMahan, J. (2010). Killing in War: Revised Edition. Oxford University Press.
• Woods, N. (2011). The Ethics of War: Shared Problems in Different Traditions. Ashgate Publishing.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: War Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 566 words

2 pages / 875 words

1 pages / 551 words

1 pages / 332 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Effects of War

War is a complex and unpredictable phenomenon, and the fog of war adds another layer of uncertainty to an already difficult situation. The fog of war refers to the uncertainty and confusion that arises during military [...]

"The Effects of World War 2" - The National WWII Museum; retrieved from https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-world-war-ii-effects."Positive and Negative [...]

War, throughout history, has been a constant presence in human societies, shaping nations, economies, and individuals in multitudes of ways. This essay aims to explore the multi-dimensional aspects of war, delving into its [...]

Introduction The Great War and the second ordeal of conflict in Europe, played a fundamental in the increase of the rights for women. During the second world war, the British government encouraged house-wives to do the work of [...]

War can have a profound psychological impact on veterans and civilians alike. The trauma of war can manifest in a variety of ways, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and other mental health [...]

Historical buildings and cultural assets can be greatly affected during war. Cultural heritage refers to the tangible and intangible elements of a society, such as monuments, artifacts, and traditional practices, that are passed [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Is War Ever Justified? (Essay Sample)

Is war ever justified.

Many wars have taken place since ages as far back in the bible making war part of the society. Many people believe that wars are necessary, especially in situations where all diplomatic methods have been exhausted. In my view, war is not justified because many people use war as an excuse to further their interests. Whenever external forces become a threat, most leaders resort to war as a way to suppress the opposition. That is why leaders are quick to justify their action of going to war because they consider war necessary to fulfill their greed.  War is not justified because of its aftermath; wars cause death, destruction, loss, strained relationships, and suffering.

One of the severe consequences of war is the loss of innocent civilians’ lives that cannot be replaced.  Frequent wars eradicates hopes and dreams of many people, destroying their homeland and making people live in constant fear of being attacked. Fighting in the name of bringing peace cannot be justified because it contradicts the meaning of peace itself. Even though some people believe that under exceptional circumstances, war is justified. I do believe that negotiations can also be used in these exceptional circumstances to prevent war in the first place. The most common argument is that war is acceptable when it is in self-defense or when liberating citizens from an oppressive regime. If only war can save more people than killing them, then war can be justified.

Looking back at two major world wars the First World War and the Second World War that prolonged for four years more than 40 countries participated in the war and both wars resulted in over 37 million casualties with properties being damaged. Scholars justify war using the principle of utilitarianism; they believe that war will improve the lives of many people, however, in reality; many innocent citizens are the ones who die. Selective killing cannot be achieved especially by using modern equipment; most people go to war to win not to lose. Therefore, they will use all the lethal weapons like bombs that will affect innocent people like in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The outcome of any war is destruction that includes people, habitat, infrastructure, livelihoods, and relationships. War has never promoted any good virtues like prosperity, harmony or tolerance. Those who survive are not safe either, and war cannot bring back the dead. We should not cling to the common myth that war can fix anything, taking away innocent lives and restoring property is not justice.

Countries should embrace alternative ways like negotiations than engaging in war. We should all know that human lives are too precious to be measured by personal agendas. If we cannot prevent wars, we do not have the morals to justify war itself. The real solution is not war, but war seems to be the easiest solution. There are better and sustainable solutions for resolving conflicts than engaging in war. Making sacrifices and compromises and talking about our differences without shading innocent blood are some of the better options. War is not a good entry for peace building, for any war to be justified there should be some degree of morality in which the wars are fought. Fighting with dignity includes treating our enemy well during and after the battle, treating war prisoners humanely and not targeting innocent people, which in this case is not possible.  I do believe that war is not justified at all and it is not necessary. Nobody has the right to kill people in the name of restoring peace or protecting it s citizens from potential threat.

Is War Ever Justified?

Cite this chapter.

• David K. Chan 2  

245 Accesses

I have now presented the philosophy of co-existence as an alternative to just war theory, and I have also applied the philosophy of co-existence to some recent ethical challenges to the morality of war. In concluding this book, I will try again to explain where the new ethics of war that I have laid out stands in comparison with pacifism and just war theory. For I recognize that there are pacifists who see my arguments in this book as support for their view that war is never justified. And there are just war theorists who will see me as justifying war, but with more restrictive conditions. In responding to such interpretations, I will also be able to show the reader how the philosophy of co-existence combines the good points of both pacifism and just war theory, while avoiding their problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977), p. 254.

Google Scholar  

Walzer, “Emergency Ethics” in Arguing About War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 40.

Brian Orend, “Is There a Supreme Emergency Exemption?” in Just War Theory: A Reappraisal , ed. Mark Evans (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 148.

Andrew Fiala, The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008).

Martin L. Cook, “Michael Walzer’s Concept of ‘Supreme Emergency’,” Journal of Military Ethics 6 (2007), p. 142, makes similar points about the problem of “contrary-to-fact speculation about how the world might have evolved without area bombing of German cities.” Orend, “Is There a Supreme Emergency Exemption?” p. 141, mentions that Britain “had the advantage of geography.”

Article   Google Scholar  

Tragic heroes in Greek tragedy illustrate the appropriateness of paying for doing evils, even when the lesser evil is chosen. For instance, Agamemnon paid a price for choosing to sacrifice his daughter Iphigenia so that the Greek fleet could sail off to fight the Trojans, as commanded by Zeus. Thus, I disagree with Daniel Statman, “Moral Tragedies, Supreme Emergencies and National-Defense,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2006), p. 314, who criticizes Orend by saying: “The fact that all available options are morally wrong does not mean that they are equally wrong, and when they are not, then the agent is culpable for failing to choose the one that is less wrong” (emphasis in original). He fails to appreciate that in a tragic choice, one is wrong and culpable even when one chooses the lesser evil.

Aristotle’s methodology for doing virtue ethics is to use the appearances ( phainomena ), including what is commonly believed ( endoxa ), as the starting points and the basis for moral knowledge. See Martha C. Nussbaum, “Saving Aristotle’s Appearances” in The Fragility of Goodness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), who contrasts Aristotle with Plato who attempts to find a God’s eye viewpoint for deciding on the truth.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Wisconsin — Stevens Point, USA

David K. Chan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2012 David K. Chan

About this chapter

Chan, D.K. (2012). Is War Ever Justified?. In: Beyond Just War. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137263414_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137263414_9

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-99986-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-26341-4

eBook Packages : Palgrave Religion & Philosophy Collection Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Is War Ever Justified? “The Man i Killed”

A contemplative discussion on the moral and ethical aspects of war, using Tim O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed” as a central reference. This essay will explore the psychological and moral dilemmas faced by soldiers in combat. PapersOwl showcases more free essays that are examples of Civil War.

How it works

There’s no beauty in war, in loss, or in suffering; war is a phenomenon that has caused the death of innocent lives, affected many families, and caused destruction. It can’t be justified. Soldiers who go to war do not only suffer on the battlefield but also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after the war ends. This disorder can take them years to regain their lives back after their return home because the trauma they saw, experienced, and witnessed, forever changed and caused fear in their lives.

In “The Man I Killed”, Tim O’Brien, a war veteran himself, explains the psychological impact of killing a man during the Vietnam War. After taking the life of a young Vietnamese soldier, he feels guilty because he realized that the man he killed is not the buff, wicked, and terrifying enemy he was expecting. Jason Hartley, another war veteran who served in Iraq after the 9/11 attacks write about his experiences at war and the mentality he used to prevent himself from being exposed to psychological trauma in his text, “I, Jailor.”

Although both authors had different experiences at war and were affected differently, O’Brien and Hartley are fully aware that war can certainly alter a soldier’s sense of normalcy because they are greatly affected by Post-traumatic stress disorder, a disorder that affects one’s mental health and state of mind for a long period of time and possibly a lifetime. A soldier’s morality is also affected at war because they have no choice but to dehumanize their rivals, in the sake of protecting their sanity, their lives, and their friends’ lives.

Exposure to war causes serious psychological trauma, especially post-traumatic stress disorder. Out of all the consequences of war, the impact of psychological trauma is the most significant because it can affect a soldier’s mental health and well-being for a long time after the war. Post-traumatic stress disorder, known as shell shock or combat stress, occurs after soldiers experience severe trauma or a life-threatening event.

During this type of event, they believe that their life is in danger and fear anything that reminds them of their traumatic experiences. Some sufferers of post-traumatic stress disorder cannot reset a soldier’s body to its normal state, but instead causes their body to function at the heightened state it adopted during the traumatic event; affecting both their behavior and their attitude (Paulson, Krippner 3).

Tim O’Brien is among one of the thousands of soldiers who experienced PTSD post-war as he is in somewhat of a nightmarish daze after taking the life of a young man. Even though his friends tried to get him to stop looking at the dead body and convince him that what he did was right, the guilt keeps growing for him as he continues to stare at the body. O’Brien states, “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye was shut, his other eye was a star-shaped hole… he lay face-up in the center of the trail, a slim, dead man almost dainty young man” (O’Brien 172).

The detailed descriptions of the dead man’s body show the horrific impacts of war in a physical aspect and O’Brien’s guilt almost takes on its own rhythm in the repetition of phrases, and observations about the man’s body. The ideal of the dead soldier is a “slim, young, dainty man,” which shows that O’Brien’s killed someone who was innocent and not meant to be fighting in the war. In “Haunted by Combat: Understanding PTSD in War Veterans” Daryl Paulson, a psychologist and a veteran of the United States Marines who served in Vietnam and Stanley Krippner, a professor of psychology further explores the many effects caused by war and how veterans are haunted by them post-war. Using first-hand accounts, Paulson and Krippner overview the effects of trauma on the mind and the body.

In the text, it states, “Traumas are assaults on the human mind/body system that affects numerous subsystems, such as physiological, psychoneurological, social-emotional, and/or spiritual functions… this means that the original trauma, rather than being relegated to the past, is still a powerful influence on a person’s behavior in such a way that her or his response may be dictated by it” (Paulson, Krippner 3). This quote shows that experiencing trauma can affect one’s mind and body in ways that they no longer function the same and instead of the traumatic experiences fading away as time goes on, it remains present and interferes with one’s state of mind and their overall well-being. War strips away the idea of living a normal life because soldiers who are affected by post-traumatic stress disorder struggle against the traumatic events lingering in their minds, causing them to live their lives in poor mental health.

The behavior of dehumanizing people can eventually lead to post-traumatic stress disorder in the future. War promotes soldiers to dehumanize their rivals, all in favor of protecting their sanity, their lives, and their friends’ lives. To be specific, soldiers must dehumanize one another by negating the characteristics normally associated with human beings, such as morality and compassion. This is done because it allows them to kill another human being without feeling any remorse.

However, soldiers may not realize it but engaging in violent humanizing behavior can be a later trigger for PTSD. O’Brien’s texts emphasize the significance of dehumanizing during the battle at war but describe an occasion where he humanizes the man he killed, which caused him to be terrified. He writes, “He lay face-up in the center of the trail, a slim, dead, almost dainty young man… his chest was sunken and poorly muscled a scholar, maybe… he wore a black shirt, black pajama pants, a gray ammunition belt … his rubber sandals had been blown off” (O’Brien 172).

O’Brien describes the man’s face again and again and repeats the same details to show his grief and acknowledge his innocence. He continues to build a life for this dead man with his imagination to quell his guilt, predicting that he might have been a scholar just like himself. While O’Brien is grieving over the dead body, his friend Azar shows no form of compassion, but instead, he compares the dead body to ‘shredded wheat’ ‘oatmeal’ and ‘rice crispies.’ Unlike O’Brien, Azar has mastered the way a soldier should handle death showing no emotions. This shows how important it is for soldiers to dehumanize their rivals so that they are unable to feel guilty for taking the life of someone else, just like O’Brien felt. Similarly, to Azar Jason Hartley is willing to go the extra mile to protect himself from any future psychological trauma.

He writes that “The first step is to remove the person-ness from your enemy. Once you remove his humanity in your mind distance him from you, the human, it’s easier to kill him if it comes down to that” (Hartley 1053). Hartley believes that to be a soldier is to not think of your enemy as a person with feelings or emotions. By mastering this mentality, it will make it easier to kill without feeling any regret. Although soldiers try to protect themselves by dehumanizing the opposing country’s soldiers, it is hard to avoid the long-term consequences of PTSD. Dehumanization not only allows soldiers to kill innocent lives, but it also eliminates the soldier’s soul of any humanity.

Paulson and Krippner would agree that soldiers who go to war react differently to traumatic experiences. This is shown in the text as stated, “Some of them undergo brutal forms of torture immediately; others experience a more selectively applied torture, designed not only to fracture them physically but also to humiliate and degrade them and undermine their humanity” (Paulson, Krippner 65) Just like Tim in “The Man I Killed,” he kills an enemy and thinks about him non-stop and even tries to empathize with the dead man.

By performing this behavior, O’Brien might be better off long-term while other soldiers like Azar and Jason Hartley may have more guilt later on. This is especially because Tim is directly facing what he did and is immediately thinking about the consequences of his action. Whereas the other soldiers show no compassion and prefer to move on with their lives. Sometimes, soldiers try to close themselves off but what they don’t realize is by closing themselves off, they are more likely to develop something like post-traumatic stress disorder.

War is a phenomenon that has caused psychological effects on soldiers by stripping them of their sense of normalcy and morality. After the war, soldiers live their lives in fear, their mental health is damaged, and their state of mind is no longer the same. This happens because during the war they witnessed and experienced a great degree of trauma.

Just like Tim O’Brien who has flashbacks and cannot get over the fact that he killed an enemy nor can he get the image of the dead’s man body out of his head. Jason Hartley on the other hand was able to protect himself from future psychological trauma but still makes it aware that war can do serious damage to a person’s mental state of mind. O’Brien, Hartley, Paulson and Krippner texts establish that war is a destructor of both the physical world and the human psyche. The long-term effects of war should be acknowledged and perhaps future soldiers should educate themselves on these effects because war does not affect a person for a specific amount of time, it affects them for the rest of their lives. 

Cite this page

Is War Ever Justified? “The Man I Killed”. (2021, May 06). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/is-war-ever-justified/

"Is War Ever Justified? “The Man I Killed”." PapersOwl.com , 6 May 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/is-war-ever-justified/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Is War Ever Justified? “The Man I Killed” . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-war-ever-justified/ [Accessed: 20 May. 2024]

"Is War Ever Justified? “The Man I Killed”." PapersOwl.com, May 06, 2021. Accessed May 20, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/is-war-ever-justified/

"Is War Ever Justified? “The Man I Killed”," PapersOwl.com , 06-May-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-war-ever-justified/. [Accessed: 20-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Is War Ever Justified? “The Man I Killed” . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-war-ever-justified/ [Accessed: 20-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• English Language
• Writing to Argue, Persuade and Advise

Is war ever Justifiable

Mohammed Tahmid

English Writing Essay – Is War Ever Justifiable?

In this essay I will be exploring the question ‘Is War Ever Justifiable’. War has been going on for centuries. Philosophers pondered whether war is ever justifiable. Different views and theories have developed throughout the centuries and attempted to solve this dilemma. Using religious guidance, ethical theories and general arguments, I will decide for myself whether or not war can be justified. I feel that war is not justifiable as war takes innocent lives. It is not ever reasonable to take someone life or to lose yours. I think war is only justified when it is the absolute last resort.

There are several reasons why I and many people believe war is not justifiable. The most unjustifiable consequence of war is the loss of innocent civilians' lives. Civilians, who could have lived to make a huge impact on the world. When war comes everyone suffers. Any kind of war is unjustifiable because it involves only killing. And what kind of victory does one get? Victory over millions of dead human flesh. Victory over the broken hearts of the family and relatives of the dead. Victory over shattered million dreams, desires, hopes, and lives. How can a war ever be justified? The deaths of innocent lives must not be ignored. I understand people might disagree with me, stating although innocent lives many be lost it many help make a positive change in a country in the future. This to me is a misguided argument as people forget to realise that it doesn’t always turn out that way. Take World War 1 for example. What did they achieve out of it? It was a total disaster and the war was supposedly set to bring peace started another war - World War 2! Violence will only cause more violence .

This is a preview of the whole essay

In addition I strongly believe that wars are caused by powerful people who want to increase there wealth. War is due to greed, anger and selfishness. Only the leaders are to be blamed. The leaders do not fight for themselves; instead they get everyday/ordinary people and expect them to do the fighting and take the risk of being killed. Some argue that it is everyone’s duty to fight for ones country and it is also a great honour to die for ones country anyone who doesn’t is a coward or a wimp. Again I think this is an unwise argument. These people don’t realise that they are being tricked and putting themselves in danger. Furthermore they are aiding the leaders in the process. Only weak minded people feel that they can only win through physical power. Look at Gandhi. He defeated the British without resorting to war. War is not necessary and it’s not a good solution for revenge.

Furthermore I believe one country does not have the right to intervene in another country’s business. I think this is the main source of how most wars start. One country buts in with another countries business and before you know it you’ve got a conflict. Like the war in Iraq how did that start? The US thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq disagreed. So the US started a war with Iraq just like that. It seems that many people disagree with me saying that this not how wars start. Furthermore they say what if the other country is killing people like the Nazis in Germany. Would you stand idly by and let them kill innocents? Surly Not. I understand you would help your country in such a threat like that but may be you won’t need to start a war. The world is full of selfish people and people always try to go to the maximum extent over things. You could try and do it in a different way that doesn’t involve violence for example a peace treaty. War is not the answer to things and there is always another way.

War changes the way people live their lives. War hurts people emotionally, changing someone's feelings and looks on certain things. War also hurts physically and mentally and hurts a person’s mind due to torture. War is the most hurtful thing in mankind and for millions of people it ends their lives. War just doesn’t have effect on one or two people it has effect one the whole country. It rips countries apart and leaves them in unimaginable situations. In addition I think War is brutalizing and unconscionable, war is also unhealthy and unforgettable and my personal thought is war is an act of human stupidity. I firmly believe war can never be justified and it should only be used at absolute last resort. If it continues like this I think in the end War will lead to the end of the world. Weapons are getting stronger with the ability to kill a million people in a second. The amounts of deaths are shocking; like the Iraq war. 109,032  civilian deaths as a result October 2010. War is not worthwhile and it can never be justified.

Document Details

• Word Count 860
• Page Count 2
• Subject English

Related Essays

Is it justified to kill in war for self survival?

Is creativity needed in the world more than ever today?

The War In Iraq Presentation

'Young people are not lazy; were under more pressure than ever before'

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jamelle Bouie

The underappreciated genius of ‘planet of the apes’.

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

There is no franchise in Hollywood filmmaking that is as consistently good, and as consistently interesting, as “Planet of the Apes.”

I feel very strongly about this, and not because I am an admitted enthusiast of genre filmmaking. Like any long-running series, “Planet of the Apes” — which spans 10 films and more than 50 years — has its lows. But those are well outnumbered by the films that deliver real thrills, showcase strong (and occasionally exceptional) performances and, rare among Hollywood movies of its type, provoke thoughtful discussion of serious ideas.

If you somehow are not familiar with the premise of “Planet of the Apes,” it is surprisingly straightforward. In the far future, mankind has regressed into animalistic squalor — unable to speak or reason — and intelligent apes have stepped into the sunlight as Earth’s premier sentient species. The first five films, beginning with 1968’s “Planet of the Apes” and concluding with 1973’s “Battle for the Planet of the Apes,” tell the story of the fall and rise (and fall again, perhaps) of ape society.

The 1968 film, starring Charlton Heston, is a masterpiece. Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, who would go on to win an Academy Award for best director for “Patton,” with cinematography by Leon Shamroy (best known for his work on “Cleopatra” and “The King and I”), it begins as a sparse and desolate disaster film, with a trio of astronauts wandering a seemingly strange planet of blue skies and desert vistas. When the apes finally arrive — as predators hunting a roving band of humans — it is in a kinetic sequence of genuine intensity. From there the film becomes a drama of sorts, as Heston’s cynical and misanthropic protagonist, Taylor, tries to prove his intelligence to ape scientists and escape lobotomization and castration at the hands of ape leaders. The movie ends, of course, with Taylor and his human companion Nova stumbling on the ruins of the Statue of Liberty, at which point Taylor damns the people of his time for their folly. “You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!”

The first sequel, “Beneath the Planet of the Apes,” is mostly a retread but for its conclusion: an all-out battle between the apes and a hidden society of mutated human beings who worship an armed atomic bomb as a god. The film ends with a dying Taylor detonating the bomb and destroying the planet. The screen goes white while a narrator explains, “In one of the countless billions of galaxies in the universe lies a medium-sized star, and one of its satellites, a green and insignificant planet, is now dead.”

The subsequent films go back to the past (with a somewhat contrived explanation for time travel) to show the fall of human society and the rise of the apes. My favorite of the entire franchise is actually the fourth film in this original set, “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes,” which deals with questions of oppression, violence and liberation. When, if ever, is it justified to kill for one’s freedom?

After the final film, a low-budget affair that still tries to flex some ambition, the franchise went on hiatus until the turn of the century, when Tim Burton directed a remake of the first movie. All you need to know is that it’s not good.

The franchise returned in 2011 with “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” What’s interesting is that this isn’t a prequel or a sequel or anything like that; it has no connection other than the concept to the original films. “Rise,” along with its sequels “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” and “War for the Planet of the Apes,” is a reimagining of the story, placing its key ideas in a new context. Whereas the films of the ’60s and ’70s were most concerned with issues of prejudice and nuclear war and environmental degradation, the most recent series was an exploration of war and identity. The apes fight and win a revolution, and then face the task of building a new society. What does it look like? What are its values? Is security worth constant conflict? Is it possible to live and coexist with your former oppressors? Is the world big enough for everyone?

I think these most recent films are truly great, not least because they showcase a powerful — and what should have been an award-winning — physical performance from Andy Serkis, who plays the protagonist of the series, an ape named Caesar. Throughout the three films, Caesar shows such nuance that you forget that you’re watching a man digitally enhanced to appear as an ape, and not an actual ape.

The most recent film in the franchise, “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes,” was released last week. It loosely continues the story that began with Caesar in that it is set hundreds of years into the future of that world, with ape society dominant and humans almost nonexistent. “Kingdom” is a bit more uneven than the previous films, but it is still a strong entry. It centers on an ape, Noa, who must rescue his tribe after it was enslaved by a burgeoning ape empire led by Proximus, who has bent and perverted Caesar’s teachings in order to justify a campaign of expansion and plunder.

It’s a film that asks first and foremost if progress and civilization are worth the inevitable price in lives and dignity for those on the other side of its advance. (The film, to that point, would make an interesting double feature with Hayao Miyazaki’s “Princess Mononoke.”) Most interesting for our moment is that it is a film that also asks if it is possible for two traumatized peoples to live side by side. Can they ever trust each other? Must their relationship always end in pain, suffering and death?

As you can probably tell, I could go on about these movies. I think that they are some of the best science-fiction films ever to make an appearance at the multiplex. Consider this entire discussion as my vociferous and strong recommendation to check them out.

What I Wrote

My Tuesday column was on the strange tendency of voters to treat Donald Trump like he wasn’t responsible for mismanaging one of the worst crises to afflict the United States since the Great Depression:

No other president has gotten this kind of excused absence for mismanaging a crisis that happened on his watch. We don’t bracket the secession crisis from our assessment of James Buchanan or the Great Depression from our judgment of Herbert Hoover or the hostage crisis in Iran from our assessment of Jimmy Carter. And for good reason: The presidency was designed for crisis. It was structured with the power and autonomy needed for handling the acute challenges of national life.

My Friday column was on the MAGA campaign to lay the groundwork for a second “stop the steal”:

Let’s say Biden recovers lost ground. Let’s say he wins the Electoral College with narrow victories in key swing states, as he did in 2020. Let’s say that a few of those margins are exceptionally slim — a few thousand votes here, a few thousand votes there. We know what will come next. Trump will cry out “illegal voting” and most of the Republican Party will follow suit. They’ll say that Democrats encouraged it with “open borders” and demand that states overturn the results. And Trump, notably, has not ruled out the use of violence to get what he wants.

The latest episode of my podcast with John Ganz was on the 1996 science-fiction conspiracy thriller “Chain Reaction.”

Now Reading

Stephen Breyer on textualism for The New York Review of Books.

Zaina Arafat on Palestinian life in America for The New Yorker.

Madison Pauly and Henry Carnell on the movement to resurrect conversion therapy for Mother Jones.

Marci Hamilton on the right-wing attack on children for Democracy.

Jeremy Schwartz on the right-wing activist who changed her mind for The Texas Tribune.

Photo of the Week

We took the kids to a train festival in Ashland, Va., a few weekends ago to enjoy the spring weather and, well, see trains. It was a good time! This is a picture from the excursion.

Now Eating: Takeout-Style Sesame Noodles

My kids are still young, but they’re old enough to have real preferences about food. What this means for me is that there are certain items that have to be on the menu each week. My son likes tacos, and so we always have a taco night. My daughter, who once said that bread was her favorite color, likes noodles and pasta of all kinds, so I try to make one noodle or pasta dish every week.

This week’s noodle dish was this recipe from NYT Cooking. I served it with a chicken and vegetable stir-fry. It was a big hit, which is always a relief. I have no adjustments to make; the recipe is very simple and barely counts as cooking, which, I suppose, is what makes it great.

Ingredients

1 pound noodles, frozen or (preferably) fresh

2 tablespoons sesame oil, plus a splash

3 ½ tablespoons soy sauce

2 tablespoons Chinese rice vinegar

2 tablespoons Chinese sesame paste (or tahini if you’re in a pinch)

1 tablespoon smooth peanut butter

1 tablespoon granulated sugar

1 tablespoon finely grated ginger

2 teaspoons minced garlic

2 teaspoons chile-garlic paste, chile crisp or chile oil, or to taste

Half a cucumber, peeled, seeded and cut into ⅛-inch by ⅛-inch by 2-inch sticks

¼ cup chopped roasted peanuts

Preparation

Bring a large pot of water to a boil. Add noodles and cook until barely tender, about 5 minutes. They should retain a hint of chewiness. Drain, rinse with cold water, drain again and toss with a splash of sesame oil.

In a medium bowl, whisk together the remaining 2 tablespoons sesame oil, the soy sauce, rice vinegar, sesame paste, peanut butter, sugar, ginger, garlic and chili-garlic paste.

Pour the sauce over the noodles and toss. Transfer to a serving bowl, and garnish with cucumber and peanuts.

An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misstated the film from which the image was taken and the year of its release. It is from 1970’s “Beneath the Planet of the Apes,” not 1972’s “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.”

How we handle corrections

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. @ jbouie

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Experts say gun alone doesn’t justify deadly force in fatal shooting of Florida airman

A Florida sheriff released body camera video Thursday showing a deputy outside an apartment door and firing immediately when it was opened by U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Roger Fortson carrying a handgun pointed downward. (AP produced by Javier Arciga)

The family of a US airman who was fatally shot by a Florida deputy earlier this month held a news conference Thursday in which they disputed that the deputy fired in self-defense. (AP Video: Stephen Smith)

CORRECTS SERVICE BRANCH TO U.S. AIR FORCE INSTEAD OF U.S. NAVY - Chantemekki Fortson, mother of Roger Fortson, a U.S. Air Force senior airman, holds a photo of her son during a news conference regarding his death, along with family and attorney Ben Crump, right, and Brian Bar, left, Thursday, May 9, 2024, in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. Fortson was shot and killed by police in his apartment, May 3, 2024. Far right is attorney Natalie Jackson. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

• Copy Link copied

CORRECTS SERVICE BRANCH TO U.S. AIR FORCE INSTEAD OF U.S. NAVY - Chantemekki Fortson, mother of Roger Fortson, a U.S. Air Force senior airman, is comforted as she speaks about her son during a news conference regarding his death, with attorney Ben Crump, behind, Thursday, May 9, 2024, in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. Fortson was shot and killed by police in his apartment, May 3, 2024. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

FILE - This photo provided by the U.S. Air Force, shows Senior Airman Roger Fortson in a Dec. 24, 2019, photo. (U.S. Air Force via AP, File)

CORRECTS SERVICE BRANCH TO U.S. AIR FORCE INSTEAD OF U.S. NAVY - Okaloosa County Sheriff Eric Aden holds a news conference where he shared deputy body cam footage of the May 3, 2024 shooting of Roger Fortson, a U.S. Air Force senior airman, Thursday, May 9, 2024, in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. Fortson was shot in his apartment after a response to a complaint. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

CORRECTS SERVICE BRANCH TO U.S. AIR FORCE INSTEAD OF U.S. NAVY - Okaloosa County Sheriff Eric Aden holds a news conference where he shared deputy body cam footage, displayed on screen at center, of the May 3, 2024 shooting of Roger Fortson, a U.S. Air Force senior airman, Thursday, May 9, 2024, in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. Fortson was shot in his apartment after a response to a complaint. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

CORRECTS SERVICE BRANCH TO U.S. AIR FORCE INSTEAD OF U.S. NAVY - Family members wipe away the tears of Chantemekki Fortson, mother of Roger Fortson, a U.S. Air Force senior airman, as she holds a photo of her son during a news conference regarding his death, with attorney Ben Crump, Thursday, May 9, 2024, in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. Fortson was shot and killed by police in his apartment, May 3, 2024. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

CORRECTS SERVICE BRANCH TO U.S. AIR FORCE INSTEAD OF U.S. NAVY - Chantemekki Fortson, mother of Roger Fortson, a U.S. Air Force senior airman, holds a photo of her son during a news conference regarding his death, along with family and attorney Ben Crump, Thursday, May 9, 2024, in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. Fortson was shot and killed by police in his apartment, May 3, 2024. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

On the afternoon of May 3, Roger Fortson opened the door of his Florida apartment with a gun in his hand and was immediately shot six times by a sheriff’s deputy responding to a complaint about an argument.

Fortson’s supporters point to the deputy’s rapid decision to open fire and his mere presence at the apartment — where the Air Force senior airman was apparently alone and FaceTiming with his girlfriend — as proof that it was a blatantly unjustified killing and the latest tragedy involving a Black American being shot at home by law enforcement. Authorities, meanwhile, have seized on Fortson holding a gun when he answered the door to cast the shooting as a clear-cut case of self-defense for a deputy confronted with a split-second, life-or-death decision.

Investigators will consider these factors when deciding whether to charge the deputy in a case that also reflects the realities officers face every day in a country where millions of people carry guns, including in Florida, one of the largest gun ownership states.

Policing experts say Fortson simply holding a gun when he opened the door wasn’t enough justification to use deadly force, but investigators will also have to consider what information the deputy knew when he responded and whether Fortson showed any behavioral indication that he posed a threat. They also say the proliferation of legal and illegal firearms is forcing officers throughout the country to have to decide faster than ever what constitutes a deadly threat.

“The speed of the shooting is pretty intense. It’s happening very, very fast,” Ian Adams, an assistant professor who studies criminology at the University of South Carolina and a former police officer, said after watching the deputy’s body camera video of Fortson’s shooting.

“The presence of a gun enhances the risk. But mere presence is not at all justification for using deadly force,” Adams said.

The redacted video released Thursday by the Okaloosa County sheriff in response to allegations raised by attorneys for Fortson’s family shows the deputy speaking to a woman outside the Fort Walton Beach apartment complex who described someone hearing an argument.

The deputy, whose name and race haven’t been released, bangs on Fortson’s door, pauses, then knocks again, yelling that he’s from the sheriff’s office. Fortson eventually answers the door while holding what appears to be a gun by his side pointed at the ground. Within a few seconds, the deputy shoots Fortson six times, only then yelling for him to drop his weapon.

Sheriff Eric Aden said the deputy acted in self-defense, and he rejected assertions that the deputy was at the wrong apartment. Ben Crump, an attorney for Fortson’s family, said they remain adamant that the deputy went to the wrong unit because Fortson had been home alone and on a Facetime call with his girlfriend.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating.

Adams said beyond the body camera footage there has to be some behavioral indication that a person intends to cause deadly harm with their gun.

“We also live in a nation with more guns than people. If the mere presence of a gun were the standard for reasonable use of deadly force, we would be awash with police shootings,” he said.

The increase in gun ownership has changed policing in ways, said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington-based think tank that focuses on critical issues in policing.

“This is a tragedy on so many levels, for everyone — for the family and for the officer. Guns accelerate decision-making and that’s the challenge here,” he said.

In a statement Friday, Crump focused on the deputy’s quick use of deadly force, and the lack of a verbal command for Fortson to drop his weapon until after the deputy shot him.

But experts say officers aren’t required to issue commands or warnings whenever they use deadly force. David Klinger, a criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis who is also a former police officer, said the standard is to give a warning when it’s feasible.

“But if pausing to give a warning or a verbal command is going to increase the risk of a deadly threat, then it isn’t feasible,” he said.

Scott Lacey, a former Air Force Special Operations Command officer who served in the same squadron as Fortson, said he believes Fortson’s shooting was unjustified.

“When he just opens the door, sees him with a gun and unloads six rounds on the senior airman, to me that just screams unjust right away,” said Lacey, who spent time as an Arizona state trooper after leaving the military. “The airman didn’t raise his gun and showed no kind of hostile intent.”

Lacey responded to a Facebook post from Air Force leaders that called for people on base to support Fortson’s family while maintaining professionalism. Lacey called the shooting unjustified and urged the commander to instead, “Take a stand and do something,” adding that he’d feel unsafe with the sheriff’s department at his doorstep.

It’s not the first time the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office has come under scrutiny for its use of force.

LaTanya Griffin filed a federal lawsuit against the department in August alleging that deputies used a battering ram to enter her home while serving a search warrant in 2019. Griffin, who had been asleep naked, was ordered at gunpoint to walk outside and remain nude in front of officers and the public, she said. She was never arrested or charged with a crime.

In court papers, lawyers for the sheriff’s office said the deputies’ actions were consistent with “established, reasonable, and generally accepted police procedure.” The litigation is ongoing.

“I think the Department of Justice needs to take a look at what’s happening with the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office,” said Kevin Anderson, a lawyer for Griffin.

In another incident six months ago, an Okaloosa County deputy reacted to the sound of a falling acorn hitting his patrol vehicle by firing multiple rounds at the vehicle, where a handcuffed Black man sat inside.

After hearing the deputy yell “shots fired” and “I’m hit,” his supervisor also fired at the vehicle. The man inside survived the barrage rattled but unscathed.

Internal investigators found that the supervisor’s actions were “objectively reasonable” because she was acting to protect the other deputy in what she believed was an “imminent and immediate danger of death.” But the report found that the deputy who initially screamed “shots fired” hadn’t acted reasonably in firing his gun. He resigned before the investigation was completed.

In her interviews with investigators, the supervisor mentioned that deputies had been through a lot in recent weeks, including the killing of a deputy who was responding to a domestic violence call and the involvement of another in an on-duty shooting.

The shooting of Fortson came just days after four members of a U.S. Marshals Service fugitive task force were killed while serving a warrant in North Carolina. Some officer groups have suggested such killings could affect how officers perceive threats.

“I don’t think the presence of previous shootings is ever going to be justification,” Adams said. “There is no world where officers don’t encounter a firearm risk. Officers swim in risk. But risk alone is not cause for using force, let alone deadly force.”

Associated Press writer Tara Copp in Washington contributed to this report.