More and more questions (Christine Porcaro, Week 10, Substantive)

When reading Ian Holliday's "When is a cause just?" I was getting quite frustrated. Talking about ethics seems to do this a lot. I feel that with every statement about ethics and what it is I feel that more questions are raised. Holliday goes to state that "the presumption against war often held to stand at the start of just war debate should be replaced by a presumption in favor of justice." When I first read this statement I then thought to myself, well then what defines justice? Justice can be defined in many different ways and Holliday does not deny this. However Holliday sees that there can be a convergence in the idea of what justice is. While this may be true I just still find it too hard to define. I find myself just always debating between whether one can even truly define just war without being biased to what you feel is just. I don't feel that a majority opinion on the issue of ethics can be sufficient in defining what just is. When taking in the circumstances for war and all the ways one can approach it, it almost seems impossible to reason whether it was just or not. I feel that regardless, people would be able to argue whether or not is was just. This dialog is good though in a sense that it helps us understand the actions of others, regardless of whether we feel that they are ethical or not. I am not saying that I don't look at wars and find them just or unjust, I just feel that for a lot of wars there seems to be a way for someone to justify actions that may be deemed ethical or unethical. After reading this paper I just feel that it shows that the question of just war creates even more questions, which breeds more question, which in turn asks more question...without ever definitively answering them. I don't believe there really is an answer that will satisfy everyone but that seems to be a common theme in International Relations.