Based on your readings for this Week, access the Personality Theory Matrix and complete the requested information in Column D section for Neo-Psychoanalytic theory and Column E for Behavioral theory. You can use this information to support your Discussion post and response this week.
Note: Continue to populate the Personality Theory Matrix spreadsheet you began in Week 2 to guide your learning about personality theories for your Module Assessment and submit it in Week 8 as part of your Module Assessment.
• Review the Learning Resources, focusing on theorists, cultural considerations, assessments/interventions, limitations, and unique aspects of both neo-psychoanalytic theory and behavioral theory.
Post one key idea from the neo-psychoanalytic theoretical orientation and one from behavioral theory. What is a main difference between these theoretical orientations? What is similar between these theories? Which one do you more closely align with?
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thom>GET ANSWER