Even today, warfare reoccurs in most regions of the globe. However, even when international law is formally recognized, it is often flouted. This means that there is no universally accepted moral template for warfare in the present century. In terms of the moral dilemma in killing people in the battlefield, the “Just War Theory,” first developed by St. Augustine, attempts to temper the horrors of human conflict by applying a moral framework and delineating the circumstances in which warfare might legitimately be undertaken. However, this model has long proven unsatisfactory to many commentators, and it seems unlikely that any ethical paradigm for this emotive issue will achieve general consensus. Recent additions to the debate, such as those from the American philosopher Jeff McMahan, have attracted criticism despite their obvious attempts to accommodate a range of “modern” ethical sensibilities. Thus, I formulated the research question “How far have the ethics of killing in war evolved?” To answer the question, this paper attempts to offer an analysis of the evolution of Just War Theory, contrasting traditionalist and revisionist perspectives while highlighting the complexities and moral dilemmas inherent in modern warfare. This paper concludes that while such theories, no doubt, have their place, it is more important to exploit national and international powers to minimize the risk of war occurring in the first place.
Jane Kim (Sat,) studied this question.