Humanitarian Intervention in the Viewpoints of Motahari and Rawls

Since the development of the just war theory in Christianity and the Islamic idea of jihad, the use of force in order to prevent mass cruelty, injustice therein protect oppressed peoples were regarded as legitimate. The humanitarian intervention as a new notion replaced traditional concept of just war probably due to the principle of prohibition of the use of force. Nowadays, the rejection of aggressive intervention is something that was agreed unanimously upon it.
For deontologists, including Motahari and Rawls, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm or “the Right” in contrast to consequentialist ones that “the Good” is said to have priority over “the Right”. Such norms are to be simply obeyed by each moral agent. Indeed, such source of human actions is what plausibly connects actions to the agency that is of moral concern on the agent-centered version of deontology. In contrary, in contractarian deontological theories the morally wrong acts are those acts that would be forbidden by principles that people in a suitably described social contract would accept. We can different between Rawls and Motahari’s viewpoints in light of two aforementioned versions of deontological theories.