FIRST DRAFT:
Just War Theory
The idea of lasting peace has always been an enticing prospect for human beings. Many countries’ involvement in the two world wars in particular may have helped to strengthen the cries for an end to war in the past couple of decades. Although long lasting peace is very idyllic, the infeasibility of peaceful resistance as well as the necessity of combat in certain situations leaves little hope for attaining it.
Ever since Gandhi’s acts of nonviolent resistance towards the British Raj were seen in the early twentieth century, the question of whether this way of dealing with conflict is effective or not has emerged. This method of resistance towards antagonists, also known as satyagraha, stresses the success, often in the form of societal change, that can be obtained by refusing to comply to the wishes of the enemy, even if this means sacrificing one’s safety or even life (Ghandi 19__). The success Gandhi and his followers saw in his peaceful protest during India’s independence movement may prompt many to believe that satyagraha is key to the progression into a society in which violence is unneeded to enact change. While this would be ideal, a certain degree of courage is needed to be able to give up one’s life in order to resist enemy forces. Bravery may be built for a particular cause a person feels very strongly about. However, seeing that even great thinkers such as Montesqieu recognize petty reasons-- such as small nations, fearing continued peace will invite future attacks, discerning that “to attack that nation instantly is the only way to prevent her own destruction” (Constitution Society n.d.)-- as valid causes for war, in the case where the cause of violence is a trivial matter, people will not be willing to sacrifice their lives for these causes.
The futility of nonviolent protest against aggression does not validate any form of violent retribution, however. Certain conditions that are made known have to be met to make a war justifiable. The main stipulations are the “aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations” in order for force to be justifiable, as stated by the U.S. Catholic Conference (Stobaugh 2012). Massive genocide, for instance, is an example of a violation that could heavily necessitate war. However, a war cannot be justified by only looking at its cause. Just as nations are required to have a significant reason to wage war on an enemy, they also have a responsibility to preserve their “right” to a war through their actions during the war. A country should report the state of the war honestly to its people, without distorting facts in attempts to win support. Kat from All Quiet on the Western Front once joked: “Give ‘em all some grub and all the same pay and the war would be over and done in a day” (Remarque 41), referring to the politicians who were responsible for starting the war. If the authoritative figures were better able to gauge the amount of suffering civilians or soldiers would experience in the war, they would think twice before rushing the decision to start wars. They would ideally also refrain from surreptitiously twisting the image of war into a glorious one in order to recruit misled individuals into the army. The amount of distress soldiers and their family undergo is seen in the case of Paul and his mother in All Quiet. Paul’s mother’s cancer can be taken as more than an illness, as she seems to suffer from an internal source, as she is aware of her son being scarred from the outside through violence. The disquietude of Paul himself is evident in his thoughts, as he believes he once “was a soldier, and now [he] is nothing but an agony for [himself], for [his] mother, for everything that is so comfortless and without end” (Remarque 185).
In All Quiet, Kat once exclaimed, “State and home-country, there’s a big difference” (Remarque 205). Such statements can be avoided so long as country leaders strive to take care of its people as a mother cares for her child. Only with this strong unity can a war be fought justly, and only with sound reasoning can a war be started. The grief over the unattainability of such just, “ideal” wars should not become reason for giving up on just wars, but rather serve as motivation to evade war whenever possible and to promote peace.
Works Cited
Remarque, Erich Maria, Trans. A. W. Wheen. All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
“Book X. Of Laws in the Relation They Bear to Offensive Force”. Constitution Society. n.d. Web. 28 March 2016
Mohandas K., Gandhi. “From On Nonviolent Resistance”. College Prep English 11. n.d. Web. 27 March 2016
Stobaugh, James P., American History: Observations & Assessments from Early Settlement to Today. Arkansas: New Leaf Publishing Group, 1 March 2012.
SECOND DRAFT:
One change I made was to clarify that satyagraha was a form of resistance, not an antagonist, which my partner pointed out was cofusing. I corrected a couple of punctuation errors such as extra spaces added after dashes. I also added an extra sentence to my third paragraph, since previously it had a rather abrupt ending. (Peer grader: Anna I.)
Just War Theory
The idea of lasting peace has always been an enticing prospect for human beings. Many countries’ involvement in the two world wars in particular may have helped to strengthen the cries for an end to war in the past couple of decades. Although long lasting peace is very idyllic, the infeasibility of peaceful resistance as well as the necessity of combat in certain situations leaves little hope for attaining it.
Ever since Gandhi’s acts of nonviolent resistance towards the British Raj were seen in the early twentieth century, the question of whether this way of dealing with conflict is effective or not has emerged. Satyagraha, a method of resistanceThis method of resistance towards antagonists, , also known as satyagraha, stresses the success, often in the form of societal change, that can be obtained by refusing to comply to the wishes of the enemy, even if this means sacrificing one’s safety or even life (Ghandi 1925__). The success Gandhi and his followers saw in his peaceful protest during India’s independence movement may prompt many to believe that satyagraha is key to the progression into a society in which violence is unneeded to enact change. While this would be ideal, a certain degree of courage is needed to be able to give up one’s life in order to resist enemy forces. Bravery may be built for a particular cause a person feels very strongly about. However, seeing that even great thinkers such as MontesquieuMontesqieu recognize petty reasons-- such as small nations, fearing continued peace will invite future attacks, discerning that “to attack that nation instantly is the only way to prevent her own destruction” (Constitution Society n.d.)-- as valid causes for war, in the case where the cause of violence is a trivial matter, people will not be willing to sacrifice their lives for these causes.
The futility of nonviolent protest against aggression does not validate any form of violent retribution, however. Certain conditions that are made known have to be met to make a war justifiable. The main stipulations are the “aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations” in order for force to be justifiable, as stated by the U.S. Catholic Conference (Stobaugh 2012). Massive genocide, for instance, is an example of a violation that could heavily necessitate war. However, a war cannot be justified by only looking at its cause. Just as nations are required to have a significant reason to wage war on an enemy, they also have a responsibility to preserve their “right” to a war through their actions during the war. A country should report the state of the war honestly to its people, without distorting facts in attempts to win support. Kat from All Quiet on the Western Front once joked: “Give ‘em all some grub and all the same pay and the war would be over and done in a day” (Remarque 41), referring to the politicians who were responsible for starting the war. If the authoritative figures were better able to gauge the amount of suffering civilians or soldiers would experience in the war, they would think twice before rushing the decision to start wars. They would ideally also refrain from surreptitiously twisting the image of war into a glorious one in order to recruit misled individuals into the army. The amount of distress soldiers and their family undergo is seen in the case of Paul and his mother in All Quiet. Paul’s mother’s cancer can be taken as more than an illness, as she seems to suffer from an internal source, as she is aware of her son being scarred from the outside through violence. The disquietude of Paul himself is evident in his thoughts, as he believes he once “was a soldier, and now [he] is nothing but an agony for [himself], for [his] mother, for everything that is so comfortless and without end” (Remarque 185). The often overlooked pain experienced by the general people must be avoided, which may only be possible through strict laws that mandate governments to compensate for the slightest damage inflicted upon the country’s people by war.
In All Quiet, Kat once exclaimed, “State and home-country, there’s a big difference” (Remarque 205). Such statements can be avoided so long as country leaders strive to take care of its people as a mother cares for her child. Only with this strong unity can a war be fought justly, and only with sound reasoning can a war be started. The grief over the unattainability of such just, “ideal” wars should not become reason for giving up on just wars, but rather serve as motivation to evade war whenever possible and to promote peace.
Works Cited
Remarque, Erich Maria, Trans. A. W. Wheen. All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
“Book X. Of Laws in the Relation They Bear to Offensive Force”. Constitution Society. n.d. Web. 28 March 2016
Mohandas K., Gandhi. “From On Nonviolent Resistance”. College Prep English 11. 1925n.d. Web. 27 March 2016
Stobaugh, James P., American History: Observations & Assessments from Early Settlement to Today. Arkansas: New Leaf Publishing Group, 1 March 2012.
FINAL DRAFT:
One of the main changes I made for this draft was splitting my third paragraph into two. Another was getting rid of words and phrases that seemed overly wordy, an example being my introductory paragraph. I also got rid of the pair of words "as she" that I repeated twice in my sentence as I discussed Paul's mother's illness. (Peer grader: Michelle)
Just War Theory
The idea of lasting peace has always been an enticing prospect for human beings. Many countries’ involvement in the two world wars in particular may have helped to strengthen the cries for an end to war in the past couple of decades. Although long lasting peace is very ideal, the impossibility of peaceful resistance as well as the necessity of combat in certain situations leaves little hope for attaining it.
Ever since Gandhi’s acts of nonviolent resistance towards the British Raj were seen in the early twentieth century, the question of whether this way of dealing with conflict is effective or not has emerged. Satyagraha, a method of resistance towards antagonists, stresses the success, often in the form of societal change, that can be obtained by refusing to comply to the wishes of the enemy, even if this means sacrificing one’s safety or even life (Ghandi 1925). The success Gandhi and his followers saw in his peaceful protest during India’s independence movement may prompt many to believe that satyagraha is key to the progression into a society in which violence is unneeded to enact change. While this would be ideal, a certain degree of courage is needed to be able to give up one’s life in order to resist enemy forces. People may be motivated to show bravery when it concerns a cause they feel very strongly about. However, seeing that even great thinkers such as Montesquieu recognize petty reasons--such as small nations, fearing continued peace will invite future attacks, discerning that “to attack that nation instantly is the only way to prevent her own destruction” (Constitution Society n.d.)--as valid causes for war, in the case where the cause of violence is a trivial matter, people will not be willing to sacrifice their lives for these causes.
The futility of nonviolent protest against aggression does not justify any form of violent retribution, however. Certain conditions that are made known have to be met to make a war justifiable. The main conditions are the “aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations” in order for force to be justifiable, as stated by the U.S. Catholic Conference (Stobaugh 2012). Massive genocide, for instance, is an example of a violation that could heavily necessitate war. However, a war cannot be justified by only looking at its cause. Just as nations are required to have a significant reason to wage war on an enemy, they also have a responsibility to preserve their “right” to a war through their actions during the war. A country should report the state of the war honestly to its people, without distorting facts in attempts to win support. Kat from All Quiet on the Western Front once joked: “Give ‘em all some grub and all the same pay and the war would be over and done in a day” (Remarque 41), referring to the politicians who were responsible for starting the war. If the authoritative figures were better able to gauge the amount of suffering civilians or soldiers would experience in the war, they would think twice before rushing the decision to start wars. They would ideally also refrain from surreptitiously twisting the image of war into a glorious one in order to recruit misled individuals into the army.
The amount of distress soldiers and their family undergo is seen in the case of Paul and his mother in All Quiet. Paul’s mother’s cancer can be taken as more than an illness, as she seems to suffer from an internal source, being aware of her son being scarred from the outside through violence. The disquietude of Paul himself is evident in his thoughts, as he believes he once “was a soldier, and now [he] is nothing but an agony for [himself], for [his] mother, for everything that is so comfortless and without end” (Remarque 185). The often overlooked pain experienced by the general people must be avoided, which may only be possible through strict laws that mandate governments to compensate for the slightest damage inflicted upon the country’s people by war.
In All Quiet, Kat once exclaimed, “State and home-country, there’s a big difference” (Remarque 205). Such statements can be avoided so long as country leaders strive to take care of its people as a mother cares for her child. Only with this strong unity can a war be fought justly, and only with sound reasoning can a war be started. The grief over the unattainability of such just, “ideal” wars should not become reason for giving up on just wars, but rather serve as motivation to evade war whenever possible and to promote peace.
Works Cited
“Book X. Of Laws in the Relation They Bear to Offensive Force”. Constitution Society. n.d. Web. 28 March 2016
Mohandas K., Gandhi. “From On Nonviolent Resistance”. College Prep English 11. 1925 Web. 27 March 2016
Remarque, Erich Maria, Trans. A. W. Wheen. All Quiet on the Western Front. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996.
Stobaugh, James P., American History: Observations & Assessments from Early Settlement to Today. Arkansas: New Leaf Publishing Group, 1 March 2012. Print.