Introduction
Many leaders worldwide prefer conflict resolution according to their prejudices and lifestyles. The norms of human existence stipulate the value of life as the most significant wealth. The diplomatic path to conflict resolution is consistent with such matters.
However, in different periods of history, some people neglected everything that was created before. These leaders prefer to use wars to solve problems. This essay will discuss four reasons why war cannot be justified and why “just war” is not genuine. Despite the efforts of some governments to establish specific rules of warfare, such ethical norms are completely incapacitated in reality.
The Irreplaceable Cost of Human Life
The most crucial reason why war cannot be justified is human losses. It is important to emphasize that life is the most precious and irreplaceable. Moreover, it does not matter who wins or loses the war. Losses will be on both sides, with tragic consequences for years. The morale and psychology of soldiers and ordinary people will be low and affect future generations (Skerker 1). Therefore, wars cannot be justified because they result in widespread death and destruction, causing suffering for both combatants and civilians.
Economic Collapse and Decline in Living Standards
The second reason is the significant impoverishment of the population on both sides and the decline in living standards. During the war, the country’s economy shifts priorities and directs production capacity to support its army. As a result, preference is given to the production of tanks, weapons, ammunition, and other attributes necessary for combat operations (Skerker 12). At the same time, the fundamental values of society, such as education, culture, and science, suffer significantly due to a lack of funding. Consequently, war has long-term adverse effects on a country’s economy and social stability.
Moral Breakdown and Violation of Human Rights
Some politicians and military experts emphasize that wars have an ethical side. Leaders must adhere to specific rules of engagement and respect human rights. According to Russo, “jus in bello establishes principles as how state leaders can, or should, conduct wars in ethical manners under the rules of war” (1). However, wars often violate fundamental human rights and can lead to the displacement of large numbers of people.
It is important to stress that leaders in safe and comfortable environments cannot understand the processes that occur with human psychology on the battlefield. Aggression, hatred, and the desire for revenge consume entirely human feelings and guide a person (Rocheleau 21). Consequently, no rules or laws can be applied to war since the very essence of war lies in the desire to destroy human beings.
Peaceful Alternatives to War Always Exist
War should not be justified because there are always alternative means of resolving conflicts, such as diplomacy and negotiation, that do not involve violence. One can assess possible ways to avoid war through knowledge and history lessons (Evans 3). It is essential not to go along with your feelings and take rational approaches to achieve such a result. Diplomacy is a universal tool for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to stress that the four reasons confirm that war cannot be rational. Such factors as loss of life, impoverishment of the population, enormous destruction, and the availability of alternative methods of conflict resolution make war a reckless and irrational approach. Therefore, it cannot be justified; the “just war” concept is not genuine, and the war cannot maintain any ethical standards and rules.
Works Cited
Evans, Mark. Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. Edinburgh University Press, 2020.
Rocheleau, Jordy. New Interventionist Just War Theory: A Critique. Routledge, 2021.
Russo, Charles. Pope Francis, Just War Theory, the Ukraine, and Beyond: Can War Be Just? Canopy Forum, 2022. Web.
Skerker, Michael. The Moral Status of Combatants: A New Theory of Just War. Routledge, 2020.