Example Of Online Class Essay

Wasserstrom Student Name

            Wasserstrom thinks there are three reasons which could play a role in defining the legitimacy of war. The first one is to what extent the belligerents are following the laws of war and principles of international conventions. He opines that, with reference to treaties, if a country agrees to go to war under certain condition of a treaty and if the conditions are met the country would be morally justified to go to the war. The second very crucial aspect in declaring a war just or unjust is the cause of the war. Wasserstrom argues that how a war that is undertaken to free the innocent people from the horrors of concentration camps or slavery be called unjust? Third point with regards to the justification of wars is the invocation of self-defense. Though Wasserstrom concurs that self-defense is a valid reason to go to war, he places strict restrictions on the clause of self-defense similar to the restrictions found in municipal laws. Wasserstrom suggests that the problem of pacifist is that he is unable to create the necessary distance between himself and the other person to make war and killing possible. The major objection against the pacifist is that in the urge for non-violence he undermine his own self and dignity. To avoid violence, he is willing to sacrifice himself and his loved ones along with disregarding human dignity in the process which, according to Wasserstrom, has serious moral and psychological consequences. Scheffler’s response regarding the question that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter would be that the inquiry arises due to the vagueness and ambiguous definition of terrorism and that is why he strive to make sense of terrorism by focusing on the activity and the motivation behind it. Scheffler’s response would be to first define the word ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’ before reaching the conclusion of the truism of the claim expressed.
            According to consequentialist or utilitarian theories of morality, the moral rightness or moral wrongness of an action can only be described by it consequences. In the light of this notion, the decision of President Truman of dropping the atomic bomb could be morally justified if the consequences are better than the continuation of the WW II. According to many experts, if the decision of dropping the bomb considerably shortened the war and had saved many lives, the action of Truman does find a moral ground in the utilitarian perspective. The decision taken by Truman might not be described as an ideal or an encouraged solution, but it was certainly the lesser of the two evils. Therefore, a utilitarian would accept the legitimacy of the argument given by Truman in his defense.