Introduction
There have been wars throughout the world since time immemorial and even when it is clear that wars cause destruction to peoples’ life and property; it can still be justified when it is viewed as a solution to many evils. Many modern cultures usually tend to dignify wars even it results to death or into a lot of suffering of human beings partly because it is considered as a mark of respect and partly because it is a sign of courage to those who participate in it in many cultures while trying to defend as well as serve their countries and in a way create martyrs who earn a lot of respect from the future generations. This paper will illustrate how war can be justified even when its destructive effects can clearly be observed.
How to justify war
When people decide to go to war they view their decision as a cost-benefit analysis where the war becomes justifiable if the cost of not going into war is relatively more than that of going into it. This means that either the people fail to achieve their material or political goals by not engaging in war or they lose whatever they have to their enemies. It is only possible to view this benefit of war if there is definition of cost as well as way of making comparison between relative costs. (Danner, 2006 pp34-39).
A state also finds it necessary to go to war so as to achieve its political goals and objectives which can only be served through war which in this case it is seen as political cost-benefit analysis where any political gain is weighed against costs that are acceptable. If the political gains become more than the cost of the war the war should continue and if they are less then it should cease. A good example is a situation where an efficient political management is necessary for business management making politics to be a key factor in business.
If a state is compared to a person who relates socially with the other members of the society then it is expected to have its enemies as well as friends in its neighborhood and since states have inherent dispositions just like a human being they can stay in peace or in aggression, be responsible, irresponsible, hardworking or lazy which means that engaging into war is natural and there is very little that can be done to stop a war if the need for it arise.
War is necessary for a state that feels its economic health is under threat especially if the state members view their well-being as wealth in economic terms. Any state or individual trying to undermine that well-being deserves to be confronted. When the economic health is threatened so much, that state may require depending on import oil for the rest of its life and this is seen in many states as a death threat thus justifying war so as to help safeguard the resources. When a person does wrong he is seen as having incurred debt and the only way to make that person or state pay for the debt is to fight it so as to bring about compensation. (George, 2005 pp26-33).
Conclusion
Despite the fact that war can cause great damage and torture to human life it is justifiable depending on the situation. For example if the state engages into war as a way of self defense then it is justifiable just like when war is seen as way of punishing the sinners when it comes to matters of faith. War can also be used to control mass use of dangerous weapons against state enemies.
References
Danner M. (2006): The secret way to war: then New York review of books pp. 34-39.
George L. (2005): metaphor and War: Harper Collins USA pp26-33.