Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If the Thebans are aggressors violating rights, fighting against them satisfies jus ad bellum criteria and cannot be condemned as evil.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Jus ad bellum requires legitimate authority and right intention; satisfying just cause alone doesn't guarantee moral permissibility overall.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Wars may satisfy jus ad bellum yet fail jus in bello or jus post bellum; fighting justly-caused wars can involve immoral methods or consequences.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Determining aggressor status requires impartial judgment; partisan claims about Theban violations may misrepresent complex historical causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rights violations justify defensive force; Theban aggression creates legitimate self-defense necessity satisfying jus ad bellum.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Just war theory permits wars against unjust aggressors; if Thebans initiate wrongful harm, responding satisfies moral criteria.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Moral permissibility requires just cause; defensive wars against rights-violators possess just cause by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.