Essay Sample on Interventions to Stop ISIS

Introduction

Sometimes defending fundamental ethical values and safeguarding human rights requires the willingness to employ violence and force. According to the just war theory, three conditions must be met before going to war. These conditions involve, "saving human life, defending citizens and promoting justice," by doing so nations ensure that they respond rightfully in potential conflict scenarios (Vaughn 49). The theory only applies to states and not specific individuals. However, in some rare cases, a person can use the approach to decide whether it is ethical or moral to take part in a particular war. President Obama's order authorizing airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq meets the Just war theory because the militia group was planning to kill the Yezid sects who are minorities in Iraq, but the theory is against killing innocent lives (Vaughn 586). Also, Obama intended to safeguard the lives of the Yezidi Sect and defends the rule of law in Iraq which is supported by the Just war theory. However, the order does not meet all the requirements of the just war theory because it involved killing all ISIS members and the theory is all about safeguarding life. The move by Obama is also justified by the fact that he aimed to defend the Iraq citizens who were always under attack from ISIS.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Utilitarianism would say that the order was permissible because it was to ensure that Iraq remained safe from terrorist and militia groups. According to Kant's theory, the rule is also eligible because the United States had a duty to protect Iraq citizens as one of its ally countries (Vaughn 552). Therefore, any military interventions offered by the United States were acceptable. I believe that both theories are permissible because they are focused on the interests of Iraq citizens and the future of the nation. However, it was essential to ensure that the number of innocent casualties and damage to property is reduced. I don't entirely agree with the just war theory which is based on safeguarding every life. This is because in most cases according to Kant some insurgents need to be killed for a better tomorrow and to save millions of lives.

President Obama is also justified according to that Utilitarianism theory which states that any action can be taken a look as it is for the greater good. Ordering an airstrike on the militia group could have resulted into damage of property and loss of life, but millions of Iraq citizens would be saved from the horror caused by ISIS. Even though the air strike had meant that a lot of civilians would be killed as collateral, Kant theory argues that the wrongness or rightfulness of different actions do not depend on their consequences but fulfilling the duty to defend the law. According to Kant theory, there are categorical imperatives in the society that need to be safeguarded at all costs.

Conclusion

All in all, I believe that the United States through president Barrack Obama was justified in ordering for an air strike. This is because ISIS had not only grown into a group that was terrorizing Iraq citizens, but they were also responsible for multiple bombings across Europe. Therefore, this made the group an international terrorist organization that needed to be stopped for the safety of humanity.

Work Cited

Vaughn, Lewis. Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton & Company, 2015.