I will pay for the following article Ethical and Religious Perspectives. The work is to be 2 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. It is claimed, therefore, that this reasoning elevated the justification for war as it placed it on the need to side with what is right. In Immanuel Kant’s terms, it becomes an ‘ought’ that man must do willingly.

It concluded with a visitation of the Christian’s social doctrine on solidarity and brotherhood. This reiterates the sameness of human essence as the primary reason why one should love his neighbor like his real brother, which directly opposed the war.

I like to respond to this work in two ways. Firstly, I want to explore the basic ideas presented as justification for war, specifically, the emphasis on the attainment of peace through bloody means. Secondly, I want to expound on the social doctrine showed as the right attitude toward human disputes by touching lightly on the concept of the common good.

As for the justification for war, it is clear that the achievement of world peace can never be used as a reason for the death of people because of war. While it is true that man is ought to follow what is right, the determination of the right act is the most essential task. Due to variances on ethical judgments, sometimes, the wrong means are chosen although its ends are heroic. As in the case of war, although the intended goal is to protect the lives of the oppressed through the use of force, it still does not diminish the inherent wrongness of killing. Since the object chosen is bad in itself, it cannot be morally justified however noble its end is. At this point, an essential question can be raised: how can an act be evaluated to ensure that it is truly moral? Unfortunately, this has not been touched in the essay, which to me, is an essential topic to bring out. For this, it is essential to review St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the three sources of morality. For an act to be good, it must be good in its intention. the object used. and the accompanying circumstance. Through this method, it is logical to say that war can never be justified since the object chosen is morally evil—as it involves the taking of life, which is sacred and must always be treated for its own sake.

As for the presented social doctrine, there are two ways in which the concept of brotherhood can be justified—one is philosophical, the other is theological. Since there is an obvious difficulty in the use of theology to justify the need to unconditionally love your neighbor, and to be more specific, your enemy for the love of God, the logical solution would be to use philosophy. As for this one, there is a need to understand human dignity and the uniqueness and irreplaceability of one’s existence. By infusing the pillars of natural law, we are able to understand the reasons why there is a need to respect another person: for one because man is ought to be valued for himself as a self-determining agent. and second, because in respecting others, one is able to respect himself as well.