Machiavelli Vs Rawls

Both Machiavelli and John Rawls wrote about war and conflict. Machiavelli’s theory was to use extreme measures to justify the means to an end while John Rawls, on the other hand, stated that a more humane and diplomatic solution could justify a means to an end. While both Machiavelli and Rawls make valid points with their prospective theories, I am choosing John Rawls because Machiavelli’s theory in my opinion is really using revenge to justify an action. Rawls theory has a more achievable outcome if applied correctly. Rawls concept would have worked accordingly during the battle of the pacific. Near the end of the war, Japan had no continuing war fighting capabilities left except for small unit skirmishes and a few kamikaze attacks staged from the outlying islands surrounding mainland Japan. The order for fire bombings of major cities throughout Japan was not an essential military tactic. The cities targeted had no military value. Scores of innocent Japanese civilians died as a result of retribution and not of military importance. The military planners thought by resorting to this type of terror tactic, it would lower Japanese morale and force them to surrender. This indeed proved wrong. An invasion of Japan was planned, but leaders feared that such an assault cost the …show more content…
The United States military employed another justifying the ends means to a conflict. During the opening stages of the war, the upper echelon of civilian and military leadership thought by using relentless bombings attacks over North Vietnam, this would break the will of the Vietnamese people. Again this perception was proved wrong. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and various military leaders assumed that producing a large enemy body count would bring the North Vietnamese to the bargaining table. Well, this option failed. Instead of using bullets and bombs, winning the hearts and minds of the people should have been the order of the