Final answer:
The intentions behind a war are one criterion for judging its moral justification, according to just-war theory, which considers both the intended goals (telos) and consequences (consequentialism) as part of its ethical assessment. Throughout history, such justifications have been provided by authorities for wars, though perspectives like utilitarianism focus solely on consequences.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the intentions behind a war being good or right is one of the criteria used in judging whether or not a specific war might be morally justifiable is rooted in the concept of just-war theory. This ethical framework suggests that wars may be justified in cases where harm imposed is proportional to the good gained by the act of defense or deterrence. However, the assessment of moral justification can become complex when considering wars that drag on, causing disproportionate harm relative to the initial objectives. The intention behind going to war (telos) and the outcomes (consequentialism) both play critical roles in moral evaluations of war.
Examples throughout history, such as the crusading period, illustrate that wars have often been justified by those in authority, like kings or popes, declaring them in the name of a higher good. Philosophers have also debated objective moral reasoning, questioning whether an action is good based on its intentions or its outcomes, with the telos providing a means to objectively assess the morality of actions.
Finally, utilitarianism presents a differing view where the consequences of actions, rather than intentions or character of the agent, are the only factors morally relevant, indicating that ethical perspectives on war are diverse and often conflicting.