Is War Ever Justified?

Reasons for Going War:

 Land Grab, empire

 Politics, against leader/dictator e.g Saddam Hussein
 Self Defence
 Millenarianism
 Human Rights Defence
 Nuclear Threat
 Independence
 Historical
 Religious

Why do people today hold such strong views about war?

Today, war is such a big issue because the world feels a lot smaller because
of the increased use of communications like television. The majority of
casualties today are civilians, who lose their homes, their livelihood, even
their lives. War spills over into terrorism, which presents an even greater
threat to everyday life. In comparison, the wars that were fought
thousands of years ago were fought by professional soldiers in lands far
away from our own, therefore we did not feel as connected as we do now.

How was war in the Old Testament?

Wars in the Old Testament were brutal; Jews believed God commanded
them to fight their enemies. Stories also indicate their belief that It was
acceptable to massacre non combatants; Deuteronomy 3;24 records the
total annihilation of the King Sihons subjects; women and children
included. ‘We left no survivors’ the scribe records.

What did Jesus preach about war?

Jesus preached non violence, he said ‘do not take revenge on someone
who wrongs you’ (Matthew 5;29) The early church adapted this pacifist
approach until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman
Empire.

Jus ad bellum- whether it is right to go to war

Jus in bello – who the war is to be conducted against
Origins of Just War

 Aristotle and Cicero first suggested it

 Augustine of Hippo and Ambrose of Milan believed war should only be
waged as a last resort, by a government authority to restore peace. No
massacres and no revenge killings
 Aquinas believed war was sinful but drew up the rules of conduct

Self Defence: However what about pre-emptive action is this justified Iraq 2003
Human Right Violations: Darfur, Cambodia and Uganda in 1970s & Rwanda in
1990s
To Punish Act of Aggression: Britain joining the two world wars

Problem!

If you invade a country to stop it doing something to its people e.g Massacring
them or because it has invaded somewhere else- you are then invading their
sovereignty giving them Just Cause for war!

So do we just provide humanitarian aid as Mill suggested to protect the self-

determination of citizens? or do we all we can do to bring them to freedom and
democracy like Afghanistan. ( Libya give the people help for themselves)
How did the catholic bishops try to address this in 1983?

 the claims of both sides must be evaluated before war can be started. It is
called comparative justice
 There must be a reasonable chance of success to prevent the irrational resort
to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be
disproportionate or futile. This would prevent people being killed or maimed
( wounded or injured) for a hopeless cause
 Proportionality- the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by a war
must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms which means
it would be morally wrong to use excessive force to achieve a small gain
 War must be the last resort after all other attempts to resolve the dispute by
negotiation have failed
 only legitimate targets should be attacked and there should be
discrimination between combatants and innocent civillians

Legitimate Authority

Adapts to culture and political climate

E.g Augutine was referring to Rome as the legitimate authority, Aquinas the
local nobility and after WWII the UN Security council

What problems arise with the recognised authority clause in these situations?

 A civil war
How do you choose who is legitimate authority, in theory the tyrant is,
only the democratic authority should be the legitimate authority

 A country ruled by a tyrant ( cruel and oppressive leader)

Their power is legitimate, however they are not the right or fair authority
and therefore they should not have authority. More likely to treat people
within the country badly

 A country with a belligerent leader ( hostile and aggressive)

Their power is legitimate however they are not the right or fair authority
and therefore should not have authority, likely to treat people outside
their country badly.
Right Intention

 Just having a reason for war is not enough it must be moral- but what
intention is the right one?

 These can be relative e.g. Vikings believe it was justified to seek wealth by
raping and pillaging wherever they went and the crusaders believed it was
right to invade the Holy Land to reclaim it for Christianity

 Augustine argued it should be only to achieve peace with God on your side
to aim for the general good.

Likelihood of Success?

 What is success in war? killing everyone, or gaining what you set out to
achieve
 Considered wrong to start a war you have no hope of winning

Proportionality

 This considers the reaction and equality of each side. You have to take into
account the consequence for all involved

 e.g a war over a drunken bar brawl is disproportionate, America nuking the
Isle of Wight would be disproportionate, however you could argue that the
US invading Iraq in 1991 could be proportionate as Iraq had invaded a small
weaker country Kuwait.

Last Resort

 Good in theory everyone agrees you should avoid war where ever possible

 War may sometimes be inevitable as one party is determined it is going to

happen. By leaving war as a large resort you leave yourself open to them
being far more prepared than you e.g in the 1930s Britain and France tried
other methods giving the Nazi’s time to strengthen their military position

 Sanctions such as trade embargoes don’t work just look at the situation in
Zimbabwe before the Gulf War. It is the normal people who suffer not
those in power

How realistic Is it to discriminate between targets?

This clause was designed to protect innocent civilians; it requires the war
to be waged against soldiers and military targets. In addition to people, buildings
also have to be considered. It would be wrong to bomb a waterworks or a power
soldiers
Jus Bello
Justice during war- usually the commanders and soldiers responsibility- can be put
on trial for war crimes

Proportionality- do not forget the suffering of those on the other side, has to be
tactically necessary e.g. Dresden, Hiroshima

Discrimination- avoid collateral damage to civilians- problem of guerrilla warfare-

landmines- nuclear bombs

Obey international laws and weapons

Fair treatment of prisoners of war

No means mala in se- methods evil in themselves e.g. mass rape, biological
weapons

No reprisals

Protect the rights of their own citizens e.g freedom of the press, conscription

Jus Post Bellum

After war

1. Proportionality- treaties need to be reasonable

2. Discrimination- make sure the leaders and not the civillans are sanctioned
3. Right vindication- enshrine the citizens rights in law
4. Punishment- war crime tribunals
5. Compensation
6. Rehabilitation- making lasting changes to the regime

All this done over time. e,g Japan and Germany

Elements of Just War Theory

Deontological Consequentialist
Legitimate authority Likelihood for success
Last resort
Just Cause
Right Intention

Strengths Weaknesses

 Allows defence of weaker  Too vague to apply

parties
 New developments such as
Weapons of Mass Destruction
still need a moral frame work
 Does not allow thing just
because one party says its
right
 Developed by some of the
best minds over millennia
 Flexible it grows and develops
with the times
 Just war as a whole is a
universal theory
 Recognises action against a
aggressor
 Terrorists just ignore the rules
anyway
 Unrealistic as the bigger and
most powerful party will
always win
 Allows violence which should
always be avoided
 Many wars only classified as
just in hindsight
Realism

Realists fully appreciate the horrors of war and so, like others, try to assess the
costs, but they also respond to war in terms of its benefits. War sometimes gives a
state extra land or resources. Realists argue that war is a non moral activity-
actions such as killing, maiming or steal may be wrong for individuals but have no
application to nations in times of war. So if a state is thinking of going to war with
another state, it does not have to have moral reasons before actually long a war.
Neither can the warring nations be criticised for how they fight the war.

They believe that there is no real moral authority over nations telling them how to
act.

To survive, a nation has to look after its own interests

The threat of war and war itself make it impossible for any nation to do anything
but act in its own interest- there is no time to do anything else.

However, even if realists do not accept moral principles, they can still act in line
with them, as it is often more practical to do so ( eg treat prisoners of war well) in
addition, a nation often cannot afford to alienate a nation which does follow the
Just War principles. realists say that it is important to protect the states citizens.
realists really say that anything is fair when it comes to war, and only self interest
matters, ethics and war do not mix

Christian Realism- the belief that Christians may use violence to bring about the
kingdom of God on Earth, Old testament, vengeful God (Jerchio)

It is impossible fully to achieve ethical ideals because sin is present in everyone

and in every action, especially self interest and the desire to control people. War
and evil is the result of human sinfulness, but it may be necessary to prevent
greater evils. The importance of justice in society and the importance of creating
systems of justice so Christians sometimes have to support the use of force to
restrain evil and prevent greater injustices. Reinhold Neibur also warned about
overestimating our power to do good and the fact we try to do things without full
knowledge and awareness of our limitations, the rise of facism as an evil which
demanded the use of force even by Christians, to get rid of it. Neibur thought that
although individuals may sometimes rise above self interest, the same was not
true of states and therefore he opposed Pacifism
Pacificism

Peace= good
Respect human life = good

All war = bad

Killing people= bad

Reject just war theory and realism, things should be sorted out with discussion for
example through the UN

Absolute Pacifism- Quakers

Never right/justified to use violence no matter what the consequences e.g

holocaust would be allowed to happen as force could not be used to stop

Hard to persuade people to follow and surely we have to protect the weak
Really straight forward to apply with no long list like Just War

Christianity

blessed are the peacemakers matthew 5;9

turn the other cheek

Quakers

Violence only leaders to more violence, people should work to overcome conflict
in other ways. They however do not disagree with the states right to defend itself
merely they should not be involved- conscientious objectors

During ww1 they were often imprisoned or worked in the very dangerous job of
stretcher bearer with a similar death rate to front line troops

Action not Violence

Ghandi led many peaceful non-operation protests to gain independence for India.
Following the Hindu belief of ahimsa

Baptist minister martin Luther King Jr. preached peaceful protest to gain civil
rights for black Americans

Both were assassinated…

Other influential writers

Merton: was a Catholic monk in the 20th century who wanted to win peoples
minds instead of reacting violently. This is the Vatican’s view on war

Wink: protestant writer who says Augustine’s just war theory has made
Christianity war like.

Contingent Pacificism

a plan designed to take a possible future event or circumstance into account

Looks at the outcomes- believes war is usually wrong as there is no way to

implement it morally i.e innocent people always get hurt.

However they accept sometimes it is the lesser of two evils eg. WWII was a
necessary evil

Preferential pacifism

War is destructive and therefore should be avoided i.e it is preferable to have

peace

However to look after the oppressed, war is justifiable as sometime it is immoral

or impossible to keep a pacifist stance

This view is also held by humanist

Strengths and Weaknesses of Pacifism

Strengths
 Clear cut- all violence is wrong
 It closely follows the teachings
of Jesus in the New testament
 Promotes the sanctity of life
and the ultimate value of
human life
 Supports the view point of the
early Christian church
Weaknesses
 You have the right to defend
yourself, the world is not full of
pacifists
 Innocent people need to be
protected from abuse or
genocide
 Is powerless against modern
weapons such as biological or
nuclear WMDs
 Pacifism allows evil to
dominate
 The state should have the right
to defend itself