22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222“Whereas the specifics of what is honorable differ with time and place, the very fact that one moral virtue is alluded to in the great literature (for example, Homer’s Iliad) is sufficient for us to note that warfare has been infused with some moral concerns from the beginning rather than war being a mere Macbethian bloodbath” (Moseley n.d.).Ancient Rome had both success and failure in war and conquering. Rome did not allow its standing army to enter the city of the populous. With the breadth of the Roman Empire, it was necessary to have methods and rules established for war and peace. These rules could not be based on a case by case basis for the reason that everyone’s notion of justification is different. “The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used” (Moseley n.d.).The advantages of jus ad bellum are that there are rules to follow, yet there is flexibly enough that rules change with the times and new technological innovations and political structures. An example is how peace agreements were handled to end WWI. At the end of WWI, only some of Unites States President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points were followed.  Neglecting to follow some of his suggestions by dividing colonial holdings amongst the victors (rather than allowing them to choose their sovereignty) and by choosing to hold Germany financially accountable for the war set the world up for WWII. The results led to a great depression, leaving the door wide open for movements such as Fascism and Socialism to take root in vulnerable nations. We see in history now, more than ever, that if a leader does not conform to these rules, there is an organization of nations (thank you President Wilson) that will judge and punish them.The disadvantages to jus ad bellum is that “they invoke a [philosophical] plethora of problems by either their independent vagueness or by mutually inconsistent results – a properly declared war may involve improper intention or disproportionate ambitions” (Moseley n.d.). We see this in the reading this week about the Evangelical extreme right. Everyone’s definition of just cause is going to be different; as is who the proper authority is; and if the end result is relative to the means used.“The rules of just conduct within war fall under the two broad principles of discrimination and proportionality. The principle of discrimination concerns who are legitimate targets in war, whilst the principle of proportionality concerns how much force is morally appropriate. A third principle can be added to the traditional two, namely the principle of responsibility, which demands an ex...