Category: Justification

For this research paper, I will seek information about one of the letters of Paul the letter to the Galatians. This letter is said that is an important letter to puzzle the story of Paul and his letters. This research paper will be shown different key information about the letter to the Galatians. It is mentioned the first impression a reader gets when reading the letter other with who is the messenger and what role the churches in Galatians represent. However, it is also providing one of the major key terms in Galatians which is the liberty that fulfills the law. Also, this research paper explains the most important term I got out of the letter to the Galatians which is justification by faith alone. The term justification is a term that defines human beings, who are a follower of God. Followers of God that follow him in the right way. People tend to misunderstand this term of justification because Paul uses different wording to explain this term. Most people are not aware of this term and the importance of understanding it and this research paper will be showcasing how Paul explains well the term and what he means when he first mentions it. However, it is important to pay close attention to the wording to understand how he talks about faith in God, his works, and the law. Overall, this research paper information summarizes key factors of the letter to the Galatians and more importantly covers the two key points of my research which are the liberty that fulfills the law and what justification means in the letter to the Galatians.

First, in the book of Galatians assuming we read the whole letter we end up seeing that is like a movie played by these important actors that had a history with God or experience his presence. As we move over and read the letter, we can see that it has a lot of drama. “First, to read this letter is to be involved in high drama, for one sense between Paul and the Galatians both deep and angry tension” (Martyn 13). And this could happen with back-and-forth arguments Paul trying to deliver a message and the Galatians standing up with their message or argument. ‘Second, Paul and the Galatians have a rich history with one another’ (13). In this letter, we can see that Paul and the Galatians have a rich history also meaning that this letter helps us with history and how we put them together. Galatians was a key factor for scholar people use to answer those questions of why Paul talks and argues with Galatians the way he did in this letter. ‘Third, what has already occurred has involved a number of persons in addition to Paul and the Galatians’ (13). However, to understand this letter, we need to see carefully what each of the people that appears in this letter has to say and what roles they play. It is important to analyze this letter carefully because people can get easily confused and miss understands keywords.

Second, it is important to know what the messenger of the letter is and the role that the churches in Galatians have in this letter. Today in this era we can say that if this letter happened to be shared in real life and if we use it as an example like showing the letter in a scene. We can say that it will be a scene with an author reading it out loud showing a lot of emotions and dramatic skills. “Not himself the author of the letter, he is the messenger, sent to Galatia by the author, Paul, with instructions to assemble the church in first one Galatian city and then another, in order to read the letter to them” (Martyn 13). And again, this will happen if we were to interpret this letter in real life and this era shows how dramatic this letter is. Following, we can talk about the churches in Galatians which are mentioned in three passages in the bible. And basically, Paul here is providing a strong message, a positive one, to the churches. Letting the gentiles know that he has good news and that this good news is all of what he was proclaiming. “Moreover, Paul preached this good news without laying on the Galatians any cultic requirements, such as the rite of circumcision” (Martyn 13). However, it is also mentioned that in the church we can see throughout the letter to the Galatians that they show more than love and endearment uniting the evangelist and infant gathering. Moreover, Paul uses the term the churches in Galatia with the purpose to locate them better and refer to them by their location:

It is, however, a natural way of addressing a group of ethnic Galatians living in the northern part of the providence, descendants of the Celts who had made up the old Galatian kingdom centered in Ankyra and Pessinus (with perhaps an admixture of some Greek and a few oriental immigrants). (Martyn16)

So basically, the churches of Galatia are a term that Paul used to refer to the location, their demographics, of the churches of Galatia. Not to mention that this could help the reader when they try to interpret the bible. Being able to understand how Paul refers to the churches in Galatia will be beneficial in this letter.

When talking about Liberty that fulfills the law this concept is first mentioned in James 1:25 and is letting us know that liberty that fulfills the law is the declaration of salvation in Jesus Christ and not to mention the declaration of righteousness. However, the book of Galatians when refers to righteousness as apart from the law. “That is so because of its concentration of themes central to the Christian gospel, its attack against legalism, and the complexity of Paul’s arguments in support of a law-free gospel” (Longenecker 98). This makes the book of Galatians essential to the understanding of what is the argument that Paul was making concerning laws that are not good examples of what it means to become a Christian. However, to demonstrate and support this we have two key examples or arguments. The first one is the experience that Paul demonstrates to the Christians in Galatians his experience sets up a bigger point of view for those Christians in Galatians that are not as experienced as Paul. ‘Paul is convinced that if the Galatians Christians would only make the connection between his preaching and God’s blessing in their lives, the Judaizers would have no opening and matters would be settled’ (99). however, the Judaizer is strictly convinced that people should live their lives as Jews or eat sleep or even follow their traditions as Jews. Moving forward, to Paul’s second argument of theological ad hominem. To summarize ad hominem means when people contradict other people’s proposition. ‘Rhetorically, ad hominem arguments are very much to the force-not arguments that attack persons rather than ideas, but arguments that build on the promises of opponents and seek to refute them on their own grounds’ (126). Paul, however, is not mentioning more arguments that on the other hand, he mentioned at the time of his probation. ‘Rather, here he spells out in ad hominem fashion the theological implications he sees as a Christian in the Abrahamic covenant” (126). The whole point of the first half of their probation of Paul was to be against the law of the Mosaic on the attempts of using this law. But to be aware of the true acceptance that God can provide to them through legalism:

The Judaizers of Galatia themselves might have claimed that this was not the thrust of their endeavors; that all they wanted was for Gentile Christians to supplement their faith in Christ with Torah observance, just as God directed Abraham to do and so to experience a more perfect Christian life. (Longenecker 134)

When it is mentioned in the book of Galatians the word of justification. People started asking why Paul uses this language and what it means. However, we all know that Paul confronts Peter about this problem of salvation and this confusing message. Because, Paul and Peter they both are Jews but for personal reasons, Peter was living as a Galatian and acted as a Galatian so when the Jews arrived at the place where this happened Peter, who was eating and talking with the Galatians, stands up and goes with the Jews. Paul notices this behavior and confronts Peter and he lets Peter know that he should not be acting like two different people technically. This looks bad for him for his religion and most important looks bad in the eyes of God. However, on the other hand, Paul makes it clear and points out that salvation is not by law it comes by faith.

The justification we can define has righteously been able to be right on the faith of God. “In Galatians, unlike Romans, Paul anticipates justification-being acquitted before God at the judgment as a result of trusting in Jesus and walking in the new life and the new power of the spirit that Jesus’s death made available to human beings” (DeSilva 218). And again, we can see that Jesus is the one that provides us with a new life with new opportunities. Also, we all know the power of Jesus and that his death was not taken for granted his death made us human beings. That is the reason why in Galatians Paul saw justification as a judgment that made us the readers of this letter think that we obtain justification by the side of God. “This understanding of justification in Galatians may conjure several unwelcome bugbears of the reformation and its tradition” (DeSilva 222). Paul thinks that he can provide the Christians to try to reach what is known as the resurrection. “At first sight, it seems as if Paul’s specific teaching on the justification of the ungodly ‘by faith’ and ‘without works of the Law’ was only expressed in his letters to the Galatians, Romans, and the Philippians” (Stettler). So, Paul uses this term of justification throughout the writing of his letter. This is why people and researchers (scholars) don’t seem to see what the true spot or stance of this term is. “According to the 19th-century scholar William Wrede, ‘justification by faith was simply a polemical doctrine designed to neutralize the theological threat posed by Judaism’ at a certain period of Paul’s missionary endeavors” (qtd. in Stettler). Following, when the letter of Galatians, it is mention justification we can see that this term is mentioned early on in Paul’s writing in Galatians. Paul mentions that justification is by faith and not by works. When we talk about justification it means to be declared right with God. According to Paul, we can say that we can’t be justified by God by doing or working with the rules. “Those who believe that justification by faith and not by works’ appeared rather late in Paul’s theological thinking, tend (like Schnelle) to give Galatians a date somewhere near Romans, about AD 57” (Stettler). On the other hand, salvation is not by work, is by faith. It doesn’t matter what works we have done as human beings because that will not give people salvation according to Paul. However, if human beings have faith in God that is when they will be saved and have salvation. We cannot be perfect for sinning or perfect by doing the right things. Because if that happens, people will be doing the works of the law and as mentioned salvation does not come from works or being perfect it comes from faith in ourselves and most importantly faith in God. ‘In other words, the Law reveals our captivity to sin, our inability to comply with God’s righteous will as revealed in the Law, which then directs us to seek liberation from sin through Christ, apart from the Law’ (Owen). The law is not being good but being perfect. The object of the people’s life is Jesus Christ. Nobody could be justified when it comes to the works of the law. Not to mention that it is also mentioned in Romans that the law causes sin. And then when we think about the point Paul was trying to make that the law those not bring us salvation. We see in other sessions in the bible that the law has not been good which is why there will not be any salvation if people use the work of law. ‘Paul is then saying that all those who are subject to what the Law effects or brings about are under a curse’ (Owen). Not to mention, the perspective that Paul has on Israel where we can say that Israel was cursed. “Yet Paul’s position was that the Law of God cursed Israel rather than working to Israel’s benefit because Israel could not go on to live according to the Law” (Owen). Again we can assume that we can be justified by Faith.

As a final point, we summarize some key points of the letter to the Galatians. It was covering the main two key points that this research paper wanted to accomplish which were the liberty that fulfills the law and what is just and what is attached to this term mentioned in the letter. By reading this research paper we now know that Jesus Christ declares salvation and righteousness to human beings. That we can live a perfect life by faith and not by works of the law. Because salvation comes from faith and not from works. To conclude after reading this information it is important to know that God died for our sins and that no matter what belief we have or what we do, or how we fail or succeed we can never lose faith in God. God is the key to life and the least we can do is trust him and love him showing faith throughout our life.

Works Cited

1. DeSilva, David Arthur. The Letter to the Galatians. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018.
2. Longenecker, Richard N. World Biblical Commentary: Galatians. Vol. 41, Word Books, 1990.
3. Martyn, James Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 33A, Doubleday, 1997.
4. Owen, Paul. “The’ Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 126, no. 3, Fall 2007, pp. 553–577. EBSCOhost.
5. Stettler, Hanna. “Did Paul Invent Justification by Faith?.” Tyndale Bulletin, vol. 66, no. 2, 2015, pp. 161–196. EBSCOhost.

I. Introduction

This case has been submitted by the Austrian court for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the issue relating to Article 34 of the TFEU.

A new Austrian law banning the import of meat and meat-based products from Germany has been introduced. This Austrian law has come from the outbreak of avian influenza on poultry farms in Bavaria, in southern Germany, banning the import of meat and meat-based products from Germany.

A disgruntled customer Paula, who can no longer purchase Rouladen, the traditional German food, wants to bring a judicial review (JR) action in Austrian courts to challenge Austria’s import ban as she believes that it violates the principles of the free movement of goods.

In this opinion, I will consider if the Austrian law violates the principles of the Free Movement of Goods, especially in relation to Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

II. Relevant law

Quantitative restrictions (QRs) relate to the use of quotas and bans on certain products by member states (MS). These QRs between MSs are prohibited on imports and exports of goods through articles 34 and 35 TFEU.

In relation to the question of does the Austrian law violates the principles of the free movement of goods we need to establish the definition of good to assess whether Rouladen can be classified as a ‘good’. A key case that establishes the definition of a ‘good’ is the Commission v Italy case. The court states, “all products which can be valued in money, and can therefore be the subject of commercial transactions, are ‘goods’”.

However, Article 36 TFEU gives MSs the ability to take measures “having effect to quantitative restrictions” when they are considered “justifiable” from the list established in the article.

III. Compatibility of the Austrian law in relation to Article 34 TFEU

In the case at hand, it is important to establish that Rouladen, the traditional German food is classified as a ‘good’. As previously mentioned in paragraph (6), the definition of a ‘good’ is established in the case Commission v Italy. Therefore, the Rouladen can be classified as a ‘good’, and therefore, Article 34 applies to the case.

Before looking at any justifications, Article 34 applies. The new Austrian law banning the import of meat and meat-based products from Germany meets the requirement of being a QR as it is an outright ban on imports. A key case in relation to QRs is Geddo v Ente Nazionale Risi as the definition of a QR is firmly established and the ban on prohibitions of imports and exports, “the prohibition on quantitative restrictions covers measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of, according to the circumstances, imports, exports, or goods in transit”.

Therefore, before the consideration of justifications, I would assert that the Austrian law would be incompatible with Article 34 TFEU.

IV. Justifications of the Austrian law in relation to Article 36 TFEU

As previously mentioned in paragraph (7) Article 36 TFEU provides a list of justifications that are viewed as permissible QRs. In relation to the case at hand, the basis for the introduction of the Austrian law, banning meat-based products, is that there has been an outbreak of avian influenza on poultry farms in Germany. Therefore, banning the import of meat-based products could be classified as justifiable under Article 36 as it states, “prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property.”

Justification for the introduction of the new Austrian law could fall under the category of “protection of the health and life of humans”. The outbreak of avian influenza on poultry farms is a health hazard for the public causing serious illness. Therefore, it could be justifiable under Article 36. However, when examining further, I would argue that the justification is not strong enough the employ the restrictions of banning the import of meat-based products from Germany.

V. Proportionality of Austrian law in relation to justifications under Article 36 TFEU

A proportionality test can be used to measure the restriction (banning meat-based products) against the justification (public health). This proportionality test is a balancing exercise between restriction and justification. Proportionality tests apply to all justifications under Article 36 TFEU and conclude if the restriction in place is effective in meeting the justified ends. Further, it questions if the restriction is necessary and least restrictive out of potential options.

As previously mentioned in paragraphs (12) and (13) there are justifications provided which allow QRs. However, in this case, the justification of “the protection of public health” can be argued as arbitrary discrimination against German imports of Rouladen.

The introduction of the Austrian law banning all meat-based products from Germany has established the outbreak of avian influenza on poultry farms. This raises questions about the motives behind the introduction of Austrian law. Avian influenza is primarily seen in birds giving it the commonly known name of “bird flu”. The traditional German food, Rouladen is made from beef, bacon, pickles, onions, mustard, and wine. None of these ingredients come from poultry farms therefore Austria should not be banning meat-based products.

Article 36 TFEU also states, “Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States”. The banning of meat-based products from Germany can be classified as arbitrary discrimination as it is banning meat-based products rather than poultry products imported from Germany. Further, the introduction of the Austrian law can be classified as a disguised restriction as now, with Rouladen no longer available from local supermarkets in Oberndorf, the sales of the locally Austrian-made beef schnitzel have rocketed. Therefore, it can be argued, that banning the import of meat-based products can be classified as arbitrary discrimination and a disguised restriction to help boost the sales of the locally-made Austrian schnitzel.

An example of a disguised restriction can be seen in the case Commission v UK. The UK introduced a ban on poultry imports from France on the grounds of the protection of public health. However, there had not been an outbreak of the disease in relation to the poultry and the ban was not justified under Article 36 TFEU. The court stated, “these facts are sufficient to establish that the 1981 measures constitute a disguised restriction.”

In my opinion, using the proportionality test, Article 36, and the case law Commission v UK the restriction of banning the import of meat-based products from Germany is not justifiable under Article 36 in relation to the protection of public health. Further, the scope of the ban must be identified as to how long it could potentially last and are they any alternatives.

VI. Conclusion

Overall, when examining the compatibility of the Austrian law in relation to Article 34 TFEU it is clear that the law is incompatible with this Article. The Austrian law is incompatible with Article 36 TFEU as the article simply states that QRs are prohibited by MS. This Article is straightforward in prohibiting this and therefore it is easy to establish the Austrian law as incompatible.

When further assessing the compatibility of the Austrian law with Article 34 TFEU it is important to note the justifications under Article 36 TFEU as they are closely linked. However, when carrying out the proportionality test and following case law, it is easy to determine, again, that the Austrian law will not be compatible with Article 36 TFEU under the classification of protecting public health, and in turn, this leads to the incompatibility of the Austrian law in relation to Article 34 TFEU.

The scent of gunpowder could be smelled in the tail dull air. Loud cries of pain were heard all around as bombs were thrown into the gray sky. Mexican soldiers fired in defense of disputed territory as the American soldiers advanced toward Mexico. In response president, James Polk declared war on Mexico claiming that the Mexicans killed soldiers on American land. Soon the US annexed Texas and claimed Texas as theirs. The US robbed land from Mexico which resulted in an unjust war because the US stole Texas, robbed land to expand US slavery, and Invaded Mexico.

To begin with, The United States was not justified in going to war with Mexico because the US stole Texas from Mexico. For instance, in A Mexican Viewpoint On The War With The United States, “From Mexico’s point of view, the annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons.” The US stole Texas from right under the Mexicans without any remorse and they annexed Texas in hopes of covering up what they did. The US stealing Texas was unjust because they took what wasn’t there and robbed people of their homes and even their viability. Therefore, we shouldn’t vindicate the United States for taking Texas which originally belonged to Mexico.

Furthermore, the United States was not justified in going to war with Mexico because the Americans wanted the land to hold more slaves and expand US slavery. For example, Charles Sumner stated in Objections To The Mexican American War, “Certainly [Mexico] … might justly charge our citizens with disgraceful robbery, while, in seeking extension of slavery, [our own citizens denied] the great truths of American freedom….” The more land the Americans had the more slaves they got to hold therefore, the United States merely stole the land to expand the US slavery. The US is in addition, fabricated and untruthful because they wanted to not only have slaves but have more slaves after claiming that they were the state of freedom for all. Thus, the US robbing Mexico’s land for the purpose of expanding slavery is inequitable and we shouldn’t rationalize the US for taking people’s homeland for the purpose of slave expansion.

Lastly, the United States was not justified in going to war with Mexico because the US invaded Mexico’s border. According to A Mexican Viewpoint On The War With The United States, “In the eyes of the [Mexican] government, the mobilization of the US army was an outright attack on Mexico…” The Mexican troops believed the Americans invaded the land and that they needed to defend it. It is often thought that Mexico Invaded the US and killed US soldiers on American Land. The War Message of President James Polk, states, “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil.” The United States claimed that the Mexicans invaded America and murdered American soldiers when in reality the Americans antagonized Mexico. This evidence, however, ignores the fact that the Mexicans felt threatened by America when America sent soldiers to a disputed area near the Texas border, Mexico fired in anticipation of the US making an attack. The Americans framed Mexicans to make it appear as if the Mexicans were the aggressor but in reality, the Mexicans were orchestrated to seem dreadful.

In conclusion, the US robbed land from Mexico which resulted in inequitable bloodshed. The US robbed people of their viability, fabricated and untruthful, and took people’s power and will. Americans stole Texas from the Mexicans without remorse, took Mexican land merely to expand US slavery, and invaded Mexico precisely to blame it on the Mexicans. The Mexicans were blindsided and did so without guilt and it should be acknowledged and remembered that America was not justified in going to war with Mexico.

European presence and activity on the African continent are already met in Africa. Prior to the 19th century, African and European activity was temporarily confined to coastal areas. It broadened through the settlement of African landlocked states and the trading of various basic products of slavery. Following the abolition of the slave trade, felony exchange was considered the perfect alternative. In Europe, there is competition and division in Africa for political, social, and economic reasons. It also had an economic, political, and social impact on the African continent. Europe’s motive for dividing Africa in the late 19th century has always been a historic challenge. In the dimension of the incident, the outline of European-African colonization, often referred to as the ‘African struggle,’ is a historic process. As a driving force, there is no clear agreement on its basic nature. Who do you think is a huge wave of European imperialism? As in the 20th century, at the end of the 19th century, glorious European forces opened important parts of the African continent across the African coast. But it’s an extension of the contract. A rigorous investigation of imperialism has shown that differences can be explained and contradictory claims are enforced. Veteran history can only enter into contradictory claims and contradictory minefields. European trade since the 15th century has established villages on the West African coast, especially for regular visits to the Atlantic slave trade. However, by the 1870s, few people, with the exception of Cape Town (South Africa) and Algerian immigrants, were involved in basic commodity trade in colonial lands. Things will definitely be different in 40 years. In 1910, only Liberia and Ethiopia left European domination. Several factors have been linked to the blockade and fragmentation in North Africa.

• Slave trade
• Exploration
• Capitalism
• Steam engines and ships
• Medical progress
• Politics
• Military innovation
• Spread of Christianity

The end of the slave trade: Britain has had some success in stopping the slave trade along the coast of Africa, but the situation in the interior is different. Muslim merchants north of the Sahara and the east coast are still trading inland, and many local chiefs are unwilling to give up the use of slaves. Various explorers such as David Livingstone brought reports of enslaved travel and markets to Europe, and black activists in Britain and Europe in the 19th century called for more work. After Europeans took responsibility for the slavery of more than 12 million Africans between the 16th and 19th centuries, they ironically justified their conquest. In Africa, in the name of the abolition of slavery at the end of the 19th century, the United Kingdom regarded the slave trade as an inhumane act contrary to Christian values, while in France it was regarded as a republican value. The Brussels Anti-Slavery Conference in 1889-90 illustrated this perfectly. The new vision comes from Africa. Europeans consider themselves the saviors of Africa.

Exploration: In the 19th century, almost no Europeans visited Africa in a year. In 1788, the wealthy British established the African Association, which to a large extent set off a wave of exploration. They hope that someone can ‘find’ the fabled city of Timbuktu and map the route of the Niger River. As the 19th century passed, the goals of European explorers changed. Instead of traveling out of curiosity, they began to record detailed information about markets, products, and resources for the wealthy philanthropists who funded their trips.

Henry Morton Stanley, this naturalized American (born in Wales) is the explorer most associated with the beginning of the war in Africa. Stanley traveled across the continent and found the ‘lost’ Livingstone, but he was known for his explorations on behalf of King Leopold II of Belgium. Leopold hired Stanley to sign a treaty with the local chiefs along the Congo River, focusing on establishing his own colony. Belgium has no financial means to fund a colony. Stanley’s work inspired many European explorers, such as the German journalist Karl Peters, who did the same work for European countries.

Can war ever be justified?

War is the act of conflict between two or more countries or groups due to a particular reason. In the past, war has ended in many tragedies and caused long-lasting effects for all countries involved. This has caused it to become a global ethical debate as there are arguments to justify and oppose the act of war. In some cases, war could be justified such as to prevent an act against another country from occurring causing the act of war to be necessary. In this essay, I will give arguments that can justify war and the counterarguments that oppose the act of war.

One argument is that a war can be justified when it’s necessary for a country to protect itself from foreseeable danger. One of the most common types of threats is invasion which involves an opposing country entering another territory and attempting to take control and occupy another country. In this case, using armed forces to defend a country is required, if the conflict cannot be resolved, to prevent a detrimental effect from occurring. This argument is supported by the theory of libertarianism which states that humans can make decisions as long as we don’t harm others. The act of invading another country to take control is a decision that will have a harmful effect on many others so protecting a country from invasion with war is required. The counter-argument to this is that conflicts can be ended without war. The United Nations is an organization that prevents the act of war between countries by bringing peace. This organization has had many successful attempts to end the conflict. An example of this was the Egypt-Israel war when the United Nations deployed forces on the Egyptian side of the border to bring peace and end the act of war ( HYPERLINK ‘https: peacekeeping. un. organ United Nations Peacekeeping). This is one of many examples that show how conflicts can be resolved and ended without the necessity of war.

Another argument is a revolutionary war which can end suffering for many people as it can end dictatorship in a country. A revolutionary war is when a large section of the population of a country revolt against the group or individual that rules the country. This can be due to a leader ruling a country with a dictatorship and imposing strict rules on the citizens. Dictatorship usually results in disapproval from the majority of the country’s citizens and a revolutionary war ending the rule of a dictator. In this case, war can be justified as it will bring the greater good for the rest of the country. Utilitarianism supports this argument as the end result of a revolutionary war would lead to the greater good for a country’s citizens. On the other hand, a revolutionary war can divide the unity of a country which results in the collapse of stability. A revolutionary war can also end in many tragedies and deaths causing suffering for many. The Croatian War of Independence resulted in over 15,000 casualties in 1991-1995 ( HYPERLINK ‘http:www.wikipedia.org’ www.wikipedia.org). This is one of many examples that show how revolutionary wars cause suffering and conflict. Utilitarianism also shows that revolutionary wars will not result in the greater good and will only cause harm.

Protecting an ally during times of war can also be a justification for war as agreements are made to aid countries that have an alliance. An alliance is an association between countries for beneficial reasons. Once an alliance is formed countries must remain loyal by supporting each other in difficult situations. An example of this was the Triple Entente (Great Britain, France, and Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and other allies) in World War 1 (Home – BBC Bitesize). These allies would bring troops together to fight at war. The counter-argument to this is that countries can still support their allies by providing supplies. More tragedies may occur if other countries intervene in the act of war, and this was shown by the Russian Civil War which cost as many as 12 million lives ( HYPERLINK ‘http:www.historyextra.com’ www.historyextra.com). Supporting an ally with beneficial resources at war (e.g. financial support) is an alternative to causing more suffering by intervening in war. This counter-argument links to the theory of utilitarianism as the result will only lead to more deaths and tragedies.

The final argument is that countries may need to protect vital resources from other countries. An example of this is the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia. Ethiopia has planned to construct a dam on the Nile River to produce electricity. The construction of this dam will lead to water shortages for countries North of the river like Egypt and Sudan. Egypt has attempted negotiations with Ethiopia however the situation hasn’t improved (www.al-monitor.com). In cases like this, war may be justified as if negotiations cannot be reached then this will have a great impact on the water supply for many countries. This links to the theory of libertarianism as Ethiopia’s decisions will affect many others. The counterargument to this is that most conflicts where vital resources need to be protected can be resolved with negotiations. A conflict such as this is not causing direct harm to other countries as harm can easily be prevented but Ethiopia has decided not to act on it. Therefore, in situations like this, agreements should be reached to avoid conflict escalating and resulting in war.

In conclusion, I believe that war should be avoided at all costs as the result is only destruction and suffering. In war, the winner is always a loser as there are detrimental effects that will always be with a country. War can affect a country’s economy and bring misery to all the people that have been affected. War should always be the last option for a country if negotiations cannot be reached and there are no solutions. The world should be united and bring peace instead of creating unnecessary violence. Organizations like the United Nations have succeeded in attempts to achieve this goal. This should be one of many examples to show that this can be achieved if an effort is made to end the war.

Bibliography of sources

1. www.wikipedia.orgwww.historyextra.comwww.al-monitor.comUnited Nations PeacekeepingHome – BBC Bitesize

There are two different forms of human behavior, the first being conformity and lastly deviance. Conformity is behavior that is considered good behavior as it meets and complies with standards set by members of the society, for instance, If it is considered that greeting elders are a good way to behave, people who do it will not face any criticism. Deviance is behavior that is considered bad, it does not meet the requirements/ standards of the society. They depart from acceptable means of living in society, for instance, if an individual does not greet elders, he/she is considered mannerless, thereby the community finds a way to correct that unacceptable behavior.

In almost every community in this world, there’s a way in which they deal with wrongdoers or unacceptable behavior. The wrongdoers either broke the community’s principles/laws or did something not expected to be done by community members. The way in which they are dealt with is known or called punishment. These wrongdoers are named perpetrators/criminals or offenders. The derived meaning of punishment is the act of inflicting a consequence or penalty on someone as a result of their wrongdoing. (Kendall, 2009) A penalty is a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract (Robert et al, 2014).

When children are still young, they are taught ways in which to behave in their societies to meet the standards and behave according to acceptable ways in society. Therefore, in children, punishment is used. This type of punishment is called operant conditioning punishment, which is used to correct behavior. Operant conditioning is a type of associative learning process in which behavior is modified by reinforcement or punishment (Eggen and Kauchak, 2013). In operant conditioning, punishment is any change in a human or animal’s surroundings that occur after a given behavior or response, reducing the likelihood of that behavior reoccurring.

There are two types of punishment in operant conditioning, which are positive punishment (punishment by application) and negative punishment (punishment by removal). In positive punishment, a stimulus is added as to get a required response. For instance, if a child keeps playing in the rain even after being told to stop, the parent may spank the child. The likely hood of the behavior occurring reduces. In negative punishment, a stimulus is removed in order to get the desired outcome. For instance, if a child doesn’t clean his/her room, the parents may confiscate his/her electronics to mold the child’s behavior. (Eggen and Kauchak, 2013)

When it comes to adults, punishment may be more severe because adults are able to think and differentiate between right and wrong. Therefore, any wrongdoing is done on purpose. This is where criminal punishment is applied. As stated above, criminal punishment is also inflicting unpleasant penalties on someone as a result of their wrongdoing or breaking the law. There are several ways of punishing criminals, these are through capital punishment, imprisonment, probation, restitution, fines, and community service. In a traditional society, corporal punishment is the number one resort to crimes. It involves striking (lashing) an individual on the back or buttocks with a stick.

Capital punishment (death penalty) is a form of punishment whereby the perpetrator is sentenced to death/execution. These people may be executed using gas chambers, lethal injections, hanging, or an electric chair. For example, if an individual commits murder, he/she may be sentenced to death as murder is a capital crime. Imprisonment is whereby a perpetrator is confined to a room in a facility called a prison, for a certain period. During this time, it is expected that the wrongdoer changes his/her behavior to one accepted by the community. It is given to individuals who commit lesser crimes than capital crimes. For example, if Thato commits a robbery, he may be sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Probation is whereby a criminal is monitored for a certain period, to make sure he/she does not repeat his/her wrongful behavior. If the wrongdoer repeats the behavior, the punishment may be upgraded to a more severe punishment like imprisonment. Restitution is also a form of punishment where a wrongdoer returns stolen goods or compensates for what he/she has done. (Kendall, 2009) fines can also be used to punish wrongdoers. Lastly, community service, where a wrongdoer must do some work that benefits the community. For example, forcing wrongdoers to clean public parks to pay back the community for what they have done.

There are four justifications for punishment. Punishment of wrongdoers is typically categorized into, retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. These are ways in which the criminal justice system makes sure that an offender does not repeat the wrongdoings. Taking retribution as the first, it is believed that criminals are aware and willingly commit a crime to gain an advantage over other community members. (Carl Smith, 2006) Therefore, inflicting the same amount of pain as vengeance for a criminal act is done in retribution. Society takes revenge on the perpetrator/offender as he/she knew what they were doing. For example, if Laone kills or murders a member of society, the community may assert revenge on him by sentencing him to death. They believe that this brings equality because the perpetrator took a life, by doing this he/she forfeited their life.

Deterrence is another way of punishment in which the innocents are discouraged from doing wrong or from deviant behavior. In this punishment, a wrongdoer is sentenced to a harsh punishment to scare the innocent from committing the same crime. This helps develop a fear of the consequences that followed if they decided to ignore the law, values, and norms of the society. For example, if someone threatens another (threat to kill), they may be sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with no possibility of parole, which would scare off community members who have been doing the same thing but were never convicted. Another example includes a serial child rapist being sentenced to death by lethal injection, doing so posing some anxiety in men and women who have been molesting children in the shadows.

Rehabilitation is also one of the justifications for punishment. In rehabilitation, an offender is believed to have been pressured by their state of living (for example unemployment/economically disadvantaged) therefore leading to crimes. This system aims to make perpetrators law-abiding, by retraining and re-educating them. It mostly involves psychological help and approaches that target cognitive distortions associated with human behavior (Robert et al, 2014). Convicted felons are kept in contact with the outside world and taught life skills, that would help them in being independent in the outside world, in a life without crime. As an example, Thato who was sentenced to 7 years in prison, attends woodwork and carpentry sessions provided by the prison, which would help him become a carpenter when released, thus selling his own work for a living.

The last justification is incapacitation, this is whereby a wrongdoer is sentenced and confined in prison for a specific period. The period chosen for the perpetrators corresponds well with what wrongful activity they have done. Wrongdoer is not allowed in society as punishment because they are considered threats. This alone prevents convicts from committing further crimes as they are restrained and incarcerated. (Western et al, 2005)

I personally believe that incapacitation is not that effective as released convicts always tend to repeat all their crimes to get caught and returned. They believe that they do not have any life in the outside world. It is also expensive to incarcerate, as it involves feeding a criminal doer and cleaning after them, while the innocent out there working hard to pay taxes that are used to sustain the prisoners and teach them new skills. I consider this some sort of benefit of committing a crime. Also, convicts are given free housing, beds, blankets, and given free clothing, while there are homeless people not getting any help. This always results in false confessions to escape their economic crisis and have nothing to lose.

In a nutshell, punishment is a way to try to mold a wrongdoer’s behavior into acceptable behavior. There are four justifications for punishment which are, rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. Even though justifications are put in place to reduce wrongdoing rates, they are not perfect as some people tend to repeat their crimes. They are several examples of punishment which are, death sentence, community service, fines, imprisonment, corporal punishment, and so on.

References

1. D. Kendall (2009). Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials (7th revised ed.). Cengage Learning: pp. 260–69.
2. Eggen, P. and Kauchak, D. (2013) Educational psychology: Windows, classrooms. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
3. J. Robert Lilly, Francis T. Cullen, Richard A. Ball (2014). Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences
4. K. M., Carl Smith (2006). ‘The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
5. Western, Bruce and Becky P. (2005). “Black-White Wage Inequality, Employment Rates, and Incarceration.” American Journal of Sociology, Volume 111 Number 2 (September): pp. 553-78

“The Quality of a Prince” Machiavelli’s impression of a prince quality that the prince should do what he needs to do to maintain his position. The answer to “whether the desired ends justify the means used to achieve them” depends on the goals a person wants to succeed and the actions a person chooses. If the means used to obtain any good or noble, result must also be good or noble. Positive outcomes must be the means of moral right. Most people accept that there is no complication of using unethical means to get good results. They make good ends by manipulating the means. They give an excuse for Machiavelli’s saying to the point of the desired result. When we are young, we are most likely to do something immorally to get what we want. When I worked at a middle school in my native country, one of the students from the class was not interested in attending the class, so he said “I am not feeling well today” I worried and send him to the school clinic. So, he laid down on the bed and took a rest the whole day, I found that he was fine, and he did not want to attend class. The student used the cheating method to avoid the class. He didn’t think of the consequences of missing the lecture on the day. He got what he wanted but he was morally wrong in telling a lie. When people become more mature, they feel that they need to consider others’ affairs. One cannot do what he thinks is right, he must do what he should do with good intentions for the sake of others. It is not acceptable to take what we want, and in fact, we need to be aware sometimes the result does not justify the method. It is ethically wrong to do bad things to achieve something good. From my experience as a dental assistant in my native country, some patients used other insurance cards to see the dentist, they just want to get free or save money. However, they are not thinking of the consequences or the other affair. That action is morally wrong to do for the desired end.

People have taken the theory and tried to make it fit any situation they come across in their life. Most people mostly emphasize what they want to gain but less focus on what action to be used to be morally right. They will cover themselves to show a good outcome. They believe they can do anything that they think is necessary to achieve a desired end. They are not interested in another accountability. There are a lot of examples in our history to reach an argument for the idea. For example, the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II. The war killed many innocent people, and the consequence of nuclear weapons still causes problems in the area. Even though it ended the horrible war, the method used was cruel. As Machiavellian described in “The Qualities of the Prince” “the only profession which befits one who commands:” The command of one leader can take many lives in our history. We compare the two ways of wrong and good morals with examples of experiences in our society, we can learn the consequences of two factors. For example, there are seats for the elderly and people who need them on metro trains in Taiwan, but some young passengers try to get a seat at peak time, and they do not care for others, even the elderly come on the train and the young passengers pretend to sleep to get the seat. Another example is that if a person is suffering from disease and almost dying, his family chooses to comfort him to death not him suffer painfully in the end. Both two examples arise a situation in which difficult to determine what should be done is morally right. The first example is a passenger can sit everywhere on the train, there is no wrong with his aim, but he doesn’t consider the older passenger who really needs the place more than he does. Therefore, the end does not justify the mean in the first example. In the second example, there might be arguments, even though a person doesn’t need to suffer that long and end his life in comfort way but not by nature. Some can point out that it is not killing one person and don’t want him to suffer. The end user is the purpose of not suffering that much which is right. However, the action chooses to end one life not by nature not be considered as morally right. Sometimes and somewhere in one life may involve in a situation that implies the idea. But all methods and actions one used must be ethical and morally right in any situation.

If a person chooses the unethical way to gain the result he wants, he can get what he wants in superficially but that does not last long in the end. There are many difficulties to come across with the consequences of taking the wrong way. Therefore, it is not acceptable to ignore the ethical way of doing in our society. Before taking the wrong action, it is needed to think that “Is it worth using the mean and can be accepted the complication of that?”. Mostly, the consequences are far outweighed by the benefit of the action. It affects others’ life. Every success one makes through only from hard work and perseverance. Actions are more important than achieved goals. Therefore, if we accept a meaning that is bad, it cannot truly result in a good way. Only a good end achieved through an ethical approach is what is justified.

Critically consider the main philosophical justifications for punishment.

“It is generally taken for granted that those who break the law ought to be punished.” (McDonnell, C. 2008 – page 1). The form of punishment, however, is a topic for debate. This essay with critically evaluate the main philosophical justifications for punishment.

The philosophy of rehabilitation can be thought of as curing an offender of their offending behavior. Think of offenders as being physically or mentally unwell; the criminal justice system tries to end their criminal behavior by “curing” offenders of their illness (that of committing criminal offenses). (Meyer & Grant, 2003).

Two key theories of punishment are that of utilitarians and of retributivists. Utilitarian and retributive theories differ greatly; the retributive theory tends to focus on the crime itself, whereas the utilitarian theory focuses on the benefits to society. The retributive theory can be seen as looking backward, whereas the utilitarian theory can be seen as looking forwards.

“Retribution is concerned with the notion of deserved and undeserved punishments and rewards. When an individual does something good, it is ‘just’ that we reward him (i.e., rewards are due); and when he does something bad, it is ‘just’ that we punish him.” (Wittmann, D. 1974 – page 1). “Phrases such as ‘he got what was coming to him’ and ‘he deserves to be punished’ and ‘he is paying his debt to society’ are examples of belief in retribution.” (Wittmann, D. 1974 – page 1). The Retributive theory is one of the oldest forms of punishment. In its most primal form, retribution is vengeance (‘an eye for an eye’). (Mitchell, 2012).

At first glance, the retributive theory can appear vengeful; “The instinctive reaction to criminal acts is retaliation by the injured person. It is vengeance, a way of releasing and expressing hostility towards the criminal and his conduct.” (Meyer, 1968 page 595). Consider the biblical phrase “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus, 21:24); with other biblical phrases such as ****. Suggesting that an eye for an eye is not always the correct reaction to criminal behavior.

Arguments against the retributive theory are that it doesn’t focus on how the offender will be deterred from committing a similar crime in the future. It could be described as selfish; focusing on one victim’s desire for vengeance rather than society’s desire to be protected from future crimes.

Many supporters of the retribution theory argue that it is morally wrong to allow a guilty party to escape punishment. (Meyer & Grant, 2003).

The retributive theory is a popular theory of punishment and has been around for a very long time; however, there are criticisms of the theory. One example is that they do not appear to consider future crimes or rehabilitation of the offender.

On the other hand, the utilitarian theory of punishment seeks to punish offenders to deter any future wrongdoing. Utilitarians see punishment as a way of improving an offender’s character, thus reducing recidivism rates. In addition, utilitarians believe that punishment helps to protect society.

Deterrence is a utilitarian philosophy of punishment that has been in existence for hundreds of years. Deterrence is usually defined as the preventive effect that actual or threatened punishment of offenders has upon potential offenders. (Ball, J. C 1955-1956). Despite the deterrence theory being evident in society for a long period of time, its form has changed considerably; an example of this is in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries when treason was punished with forms of post-mortem mutilation such as the spiking of severed heads and the exposure of dismembered body parts, (Royer, 2003). In present-day England, deterrence from criminal behavior has many forms including imprisonment and financial repercussions.

If, according to the Sentencing Council’s Sentencing Guidelines, custody is the most punitive sentencing option in England then, according to the utilitarian theory, custody must be perceived as a deterrent. An argument against the deterrence theory is that people are often not deterred by the thought of prison; in fact, research suggests that some offenders would prefer to receive a custodial sentence than a Probation Order, (Petersilia and Deschenes, 1994; Wood and Grasmick, 1999). Another criticism of the deterrence theory is that when an offender undergoes imprisonment, they no longer have a fear of the unknown; they have experienced what is considered the worst punishment one could receive in England and are no longer afraid to receive the same punishment again.

Under the utilitarian theory, punishments can be perceived as a general deterrence; which is where members of the public can see that crimes are being punished and are therefore less likely to commit crimes themselves.

Specific deterrent occurs when the offender themselves are deterred from committing a crime.

One of the key principles of the utilitarian theory is that one should always act to produce the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. They do not deny that each individual’s interests and thoughts count, but they are no more important than the interests and thoughts of anyone else. For example, if you had the opportunity to do something for the greater good, despite causing yourself a minor inconvenience then you should do it.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is widely regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism. (Burns & Hart, 1996).

The utilitarian theory aims to protect the public. This is done by isolating offenders from society by committing them to custody. By incarcerating offenders, they should be deterred from committing crime again and the public, who witness the consequences of committing crime should be deterred from committing crime.

“The concept of deterrence is quite simple; it is the omission of a criminal act because of the fear of sanctions or punishment.” (Paternoster, 2010: pg 766).

A criticism of the deterrence theory is that countries that have capital punishment as a sentencing option for some crimes, such as the United States of America and China, do not have lower crime rates. The threat of capital punishment is not enough to deter individuals from committing crimes.

In 2010, 3.1% of convicted offenders in Finland were sentenced to imprisonment; in contrast, in the United States of America, in 2009, 73% of people convicted of crimes were sentenced to prison. (Tonry, 2017; Reaves, 2013). These statistics show huge differences, perhaps suggesting that crime levels are a lot higher in the United States of America, however, they are not; both Finland and the United States have crime patterns and rates that fall in the middle among developed countries. (Dijk, 2007).

A conflicting topic the U.S. has faced is its decision over the use of Drone strikes. For many decades the U.S. condemned the use of targeted killing. Until historical events occurred, the debate over the circumstances in which the use of lethal forces may be used towards organizations such as terrorists from foreign territories has set an example for the U.S. drone strike decision. Therefore, the following paper will give an overview of political drone history, explore the views and viewpoints towards the justification of the U.S. drone strikes considering both positions and review evidence.

Since the advancement in technology as well as military artillery, drones have begun to be a controversial topic. Drone strikes are defined as an aerial attack by one or more unmanned aerial vehicles usually, releasing an attack towards a target. The controversial drone strike topic must be addressed with certainty to protect the interest of the United States, continuing to support an effective global war on terror. Countries such as the United States as well as several other European nations use drones on a large scale to conduct precise strikes against terrorist targets. Multiple high-profile terrorist leaders have been killed by drones since the September 11 attacks (“Pros and Cons”).

The justification for the use of drone strikes is allowed when involved during an armed conflict as well as lawful when an imminent threat is done towards the nation’s national security. American targeted drone strikes are in compliance with international law, more in particular with the law known as the law of war. Which requires minimization of harm toward the civilian population from a combatant. The United States has done great care to adhere to the principles of targeting only those combatants including those in foreign affairs, along with the care of avoiding any maximization of civilian casualties and keeping it to a minimum or to none.

Drone strikes remain a very controversial issue around the world, but domestically these assets are widely supported all over the political spectrum. A recent poll showed that 61 percent of Americans are in favor of drones being used to eliminate terrorist threats in nations such as Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan (“Pros and Cons”). Both parties also show majority support with 69 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Democrats in favor of the use of drone assets. To put this in perspective, the current approval rating of President Obama is around 42 percent(“Gallup”).

The main controversy that comes with using these assets is the number of civilian deaths that occur during drone strikes. Many civilians, including children, have been killed due to strikes from UAVs(Unmanned Aerial Vehicles). This is generally due to their proximity to a terrorist target(“Under Drones”).

The first factor that comes into play for cheating to even be a possibility, is the decision-making process. Meyering and Eping-McWherter (1985), stated that there are two preconditions for extramarital relations to occur; permissive attitudinal orientation and opportunity. The idea of this is that if your personal standards are against cheating and you do not give yourself an opportunity to cheat, then you will not be faced with the decision. These researchers conducted a study to look at this phenomenon of extramarital affairs by hypothesizing that males would differ from females in six different ways. In order to test these differences both married and single people completed a questionnaire looking at their attitudes toward extramarital affairs. In general, subjects who did not intend to become involved in cheating saw a high likelihood of negative consequences. However, overall men had a greater expectation to become involved in an extramarital affair, as they viewed problems in marriage and the new experience of someone else as justification. Whereas on the scales women ranked higher on all items about feeling guilty if they cheated, and men rated higher on all justification items. This evidence shows that men are much more permissive and can be influenced by perceived payoffs, whereas women are much more responsive to risks and think about all the problems they would trigger.

Another interesting finding within this study is that the results will vary depending on if you are asking married or single people. The single people within this study did not vary with their responses, both genders looked at the risks and thought it would be likely for problems to occur. It is interesting to look at how women’s perspectives of cheating remain the same when single and married, whereas men’s views become much more permissive when they become married. This study helps people understand that cheating is a decision and that gender does play a role in how cheating is perceived and decided. This study would be more reliable if it was random and was not only about midwestern adults. As well, more research is needed in regard to decision-making as there are many more possible decisions that people are faced with that might make them more or less probable to engage in extramarital affairs.

Following the ability to make a decision to cheat, people then begin to try to justify the reason why cheating might be okay. It is very common for people who have cheated or are thinking about cheating to be able to justify their actions and convince themselves that what they are doing is okay. This idea was looked further into by Glass and Wright (1992), as they explored the extent to which individuals would feel justified having extramarital relationships. Keeping in line with the previous research that has been done on gender differences, they assumed there would be a large difference in what men and women justified. It was thought that men would approve of sexual justifications, and women would approve of emotional justifications (Glass & Wright, 1992). Justification for cheating was evaluated within three categories; sexual justification, love justification, and emotional justification. The assumed results were accurate for men, as their sexual justification scores were significantly greater and almost double women’s scores (Glass & Wright, 1992). However, it was inaccurately predicted that women would be able to justify emotional intimacy more. The results actually showed that men’s and women’s justification scores did not differ for emotional intimacy. Instead, surprisingly 77% of women and only 43% of men justified ‘falling in love’ as a justification for cheating.

The results of this study in particular bring in a new perspective as it does not only focus on the sexual aspect of extramarital affairs but also on the emotional component. However, if you think about it – how different are emotional justification and the justification of love? In order for someone to fall in love with someone else, they would first have emotional intimacy to get to that point. As well, it is important to mention that although this study represents a wide variety of national representation, it still does not give an accurate representation of a population. This survey was nonrandom, and data was collected at an airport, which only gave a representation of upper-class married professionals. As well, participants were asked to mail back their responses, which is not the most reliable way to receive data as only certain people may decide to fill it out and send it back. If everyone completed the survey at that moment, the results might have been more accurate.

The results from Glass & Wright partially fall in line with the study done by Meyering and Eping-McWherter. Within both of these studies, men are able to justify cheating much more easily if it has anything to do with sex. The difference between these studies is that the study in 1985 shows women as being very against cheating. Except when you put in the component of ‘falling in love’ as a justification the results sky-rocketed and perceived women as being much more permissive with cheating. It is very difficult to compare these two results because the participants were asked many different things. This is the first study where men and women