❤ Leader's Comments ❤
Hello, everyone. A month ago, the Korean warship, Chun-an, went down with some naval soldiers. We know that it was a tragic event that shouldn't happen and the truth should be discovered. Members, if the cause that North Korea performed it is made clear, what kind of action should the government do - a physical attack or diplomatic action? In the case of choosing a physical attack, you may insist it is a valid attack for national defense. This is a key point to understand 'Just War' we are going to deal with in Big Group Discussion. You should know that killing people and making war can be justified ideologically whether or not you have no concepts of it especially at the moment you mentioned valid attack. This is because attacking is a kind of war including the behavior of killing people. Likewise, 'Just War' is a sensitive and complicated word, and you may have a difficulty to figure out it. That's why I'm going to inform you about 'Just War Theory.'
'The Just War Theory' is based on the fact that a particular war having a just cause can be justified. To comprehend a just cause, we need to focus on standards backing up justice. There are four basic standards which follow justice. Two things are 'preservation of slavery' and 'spread of liberty.' We can find one example of 'spread of liberty' in Korea. That is an army for national independence. They only fought for Korean independence, and it is regarded as absolutely righteous work in our point of view. The other two things are 'protection of innocent life' and 'defending human rights.' Iraq war represents a case of 'protection of innocent life.' When it comes to this angle, we can put a good construction on Iraq war.
All these standards are really valid and just considering its meaning literally, and most wars have each reason why those cannot but break out. If so, could you recognize these all wars are right? What is more, if a war meet all things to be just war, is it just to kill people? The conclusion is only up to you, and I hope you think about a war deeply through the chance that I give.
Warm-up Question
In your thought, what is conditions that violence meets the qualification of a war.
Small Group Questions
1. If you think that 'Just War' could exist, what kind of condition should be followed?
2. Let's find the example showing the cruelty in a war.
3. If you should choose between the style of 간디 or that of 체게바라 to fight against an enemy, which one do you want to follow?
Big Group Discussion
As you know, war is one of the most terrible means to solve a conflict, and it has been breaking out continually around the world. The U.S. which has made the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars insists that these wars are just to protect world peace from terrorists. Additionally, those are considered as rightful things because the wars I mentioned above comply with the standard of 'Just War Theory.' However, it is inevitable to lead to a plenty of victims and social disorder. Even many people who are not related to the war have been dying. Could it be also just? Now, we are going to deal with the topic about whether war could be justified or not.
Supporters of 'Just War' contend that war is the last means to defend a nation. Nations can maintain their peace through waging defending war when another country attacks them. If they don't do any action to protect themselves, though, they cannot but be conquered by invaders. In this situation, who could assert that it is unjust? Moreover, in the case of war aimed at peace, the result of the war could be better than before. For example, supposing terror disappears through attacking the habitation of terrorists, it must be a valid war for peace. After all, the world is in avoidable wars to keep peace for the human.
On the other hand, opposers say that war can't be rationalized in any case, based on Pacifism. Most wars cause tragedy, and a number of people are being slain in the war, including civilians. In conclusion, war is not a solution but just a sort of meaningless violence. For this reason, they maintain that as following Pacifism Gandhi or Martin Luther King pursued, problems should be solved. Moreover, there is a possibility that war could be employed for gaining profits, for usually a war break out in a complex situation encompassed with political and economical reasons even though it has a rightful cause on the surface. Iraq war is regarded as the representative case.
Members! What do you think about 'Just War?' Which side do you want to back? I am looking forward to your logical opinions. Please actively participate in this Big Group Discussion.