Simpson and Lackey both have differing theories on what constitutes a just war. The primary point that they disagree on is that of self defense. Lackey's theory requires and actual attack to have taken place, while Simpson's theory regards the threat of harm as sufficient cause, under certain circumstances to justify the use of force on the grounds of self defense. Lackey's position, at least to me, makes more sense. In order for an actual …showed first 75 words of 717 total…

…showed last 75 words of 717 total…at least in my opinion, a much more objective criteria for just war. By making that a critical criteria in his theory, he makes war harder to justify, and in turn increases the common good. Cases against Simpson and for Lackey are clearly demonstrated in the conflict in Northern Ireland. A perceived threat of force as a criterion for self defense leads to innocents suffering, and the common good and productivity of the community falling.