|← "Paul's Case"||"Farmer-in-Chief" →|
The biblical view of war and the Just War Theory has been used by many scholars as a checkpoint for evaluating whether a country is justified in going to war, and it has been applied for America too. One of the widely recognized wars in human history as justified is the Second World War where America played a focal role in its ending. America’s involvement in the war was sparked off by the bombing of American sailors by Japanese combatants in the bright morning of 7th, 1941. This was an act of fatal aggression and America which was not actively involved in the war had no choice but to act in order to defend her citizens. For quite a long period of time, extensive diplomatic negotiations between the two countries had been on course, but bombing of American citizens at the port closed all windows prompting the highest authority led by President Roosevelt to declare war against Japan army.
It is important to note that America tried in several ways to evade the war by employing strategies like diplomatic negotiations, and their involvement after sailors attack was geared towards creating peace as an end result. During the war, it is to be recognized that forces from Japan and Germany which formed one fighting block were well endowed with strong military might in terms of weapons and had as much opportunity of winning the war. Now, the question that lingered in many heads, taking into consideration the just war theory, was whether America would succeed in the war? However, with strong leadership, determination, resilience, military might in weaponry by the American army, the war was won by the allied group of forces. In conclusion, the war had a just for reason for it and Roosevelt administration followed the biblical theory of war.
Moral criticisms of the Market in Ken Ewert's "Moral Criticisms of the Market"
Market which is the contemporary development channel or model as is advocated in all corners of the world is enriched with all kinds of values that one might think of. Just as Ken S. Ewert, I do agree that the moral sense of the market is really wanting, and if its two major associated evils of ethic selfishness and intense material desire are not looked, more so by the religious society, then the world will have no morals at all. The human character which was God’s ultimate goal on every human creature is being done away with, providing a perfect opportunity for people to engage excessively on individual activities and thought (Ken S. Ewert, 1989). Moral market criticisms can be put into four dimensions as follows:
The economic motive that people should always act in a manner that maximizes their individual benefit is indeed the vice propelling ethic selfishness. This led to overemphasis on profit leaving aside the higher for which God designed the human race for. The selfishness created is much more increased by the fact that there is abundance of commodities one can choose from in the market; this in essence allows people to pursue their individual desires and love for oneself something the Almighty never planned for humanity (Ken S. Ewert, 1989).
This is an area synonymous to free market and many scholars have deduced that free market is the major determiner of materialism. The market is contended to create materialism through intensive advertising that is predominant in the modern world, creating a sort of vehement desire in the hearts of the consumers. The consequence is that, the consumer will see that, his or her joy and happiness comes from acquiring the advertised products and not from God; this is immoral (Ken S. Ewert, 1989).
Despite the fact that advertising has been labeled by Ken Ewert as ultimately responsible for materialism, its useful role in the society cannot be overlooked. Consumers all over the world rely on advertising made in different channels for information about various products, the difference existing among various commodities and ultimately how each product in the market is meant to satisfy his or her needs. The importance of advertising is much more appreciated when for instance, one wants to purchase a vehicle and do not know the kinds of models in the market. In such a case, advertising expands the consumer’s range of choices, and he or she will now make an informed choice, hence increasing rational-personal satisfaction (Ken S. Ewert, 1989).
Impersonalism and Individualism
This is another grave area where the market has played an abusive role to the higher and noble goals of God. The individual character of market economies has been found by Christian critics to be at the epicenter of relational ties destruction in the society. In my analysis, the economic independence that the market affords to individuals, communities or countries shields people away from other important relationships that ought to be respected though they are not market oriented. I therefore agree with Ken Ewert that the market if not properly checked, creates individualistic corruption or anarchy (Ken S. Ewert, 1989).
Christians of the left have also criticized the market on grounds of economic power associated with the market resource mobilization. These group pictures human societies as man eat man society; where those able to withstand the force of the struggle will succeed and the weak are oppressed. Such arrangement gives a lea way for the wealthy and rich people or nations to oppress the weak people and weak nations in many ways, something that is against biblical teachings (Ken S. Ewert, 1989).