Gabriella Resnick

Professor Mark Huston

Philosophy 243
30 March 2016

Module 7 Paper

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice presents his ideas in two principles. The Liberty
Principle focuses on peoples equal basic liberties; which include freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, and the right to vote. The Difference Principle states inequalities in social and economic
goods are only acceptable if they promote the welfare of the least advantaged members of
society. Rawl seeks to define equilibrium points that will form a civil system characterized by
justice as fairness. He argues that people make decisions based on their place in society using a
reasoning technique called reflective equilibrium. He believed that reasonable people will
default to social and economic positions that maximize the prospects for the worst off. You
should feed and house the poor in case you happen to become one.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, is a libertarian response that argues only a
minimal state devoted to the enforcement of contracts and protecting people against crimes can
be morally justified. Nozick suggests that government is only legitimate only to the degree that it
promotes greater security for life, liberty, and property than would exist in a chaotic state. He
concludes that the need for security justifies only a minimal state, since it cannot be
demonstrated that citizens will attain any more security through extensive governmental
intervention.

It is quite hard to determine exactly what wars are just and what ones are unjust.
Although those who are opposed to war in principle will disagree that any distinction can be
made. Just War Theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The
justification can be either theoretical or historical. The historical aspect deals with the historical
body of rules or agreements that have applied in previous wars. It may also consider the thoughts
of various philosophers and lawyers through the ages. The theoretical aspect is concerned with
ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take.
While war may be horrible, it is nevertheless sometimes a necessary aspect of politics.
According to Aquinas and other theologians it must be possible to subject wars to moral
standards to which some wars will be found more just and others less. But how do these theories
expect to justify the pursuit of some wars? How is it possible the explain that some wars may be
more moral than another? Although there are some difference in the principles used we can point
to some basic ideas.
The principle of proportionality requires that, when engaged in warfare, actions must be
proportional to goals. Military actions will be destructive on some level, but we must know what
we expect to gain from that action. The second main criterion of waging a just war involves
noncombatant immunity. This means that actively targeting and killing combatants is inline with
just war, while actively targeting and noncombatants is considered part of an unjust war. It isnt
possible to wage a war without attacking the military, but a government which actively seeks the
death of civilians or does not care if civilians die should not be supported.
After listening to P.W. Singers TED talk; I think he brings up some good points that are
directly related to the Just War Theory. He talks about how there is always something bigger and
better happening when it comes to wars. Just like the invention of the machine gun and the

atomic bomb, these inventions are changing the face of war forever. The idea of robotics in war
may seem like a far away occurrence, but little do most people know, it is happening right now.
This invention is not only changing how the war is fought, but who is fighting it. It changes the
experience and the identity of the warrior.
He also brings up how there will be ripple effects to waging a war with robotics. There is
bound to be political effects, people will be more likely to support these wars since their are less
human lives at stake. The videos that are bound to go out that will be captured by drones will be
reshaping the connection people have with war. We are watching war, but not experiencing the
true events. The main ideas show how possible it is for people to become numb to the effects of
war since they will be more exposed to it than ever before.
This pushes us to look at the Just War Theory. As peoples relationship with war
continues to change then the way we look at wars are bound to be altered. In the future what is
classified as a just war may not be the same. This is where the danger lies.