Just War Theory
Recommend on Google+
The theory of just war can be traced back over centuries to the thinking of St. Augustine and beyond. Augustine was one of the first key figures to be confronted by the issues raised by justified warfare.
JUST WARFARE AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE
Christianity, despite considerable prosecution grew out of the Roman Empire, which was Pagan. The emerging Christianity was essentially pacifist, giving rise to the refusal of Christians to fight in the Roman army; violence was against Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek, never seek revenge, not to defend themselves and to forgive seventy times seven. Equally, they could not justify fighting for a pagan empire, and since initially, they were expecting Jesus to return soon, warfare was not considered an important priority.
When Emperor Constantine became Christian however, he made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Up until this point, Christianity remained pacifist. This was the problem that Augustine was faced with; justifying warfare for a Christian empire.
AUGUSTINE
Augustine drew on the existing Roman doctrine of justum bellum and the Old Testament stories of wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as commanded by God:
So Joshua subdues the whole region… he left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.
Joshua 10:40-42
Augustine reasoned that fighting on behalf of the Roman Empire was a Christian obligation since the empire was Christian. Augustine maintained that this was fighting on behalf of God against God’s enemies, just as Israel defended itself against God’s enemies in Old Testament times.
Augustine’s thinking has contributed greatly to the discussion of what makes warfare justifiable right up until the modern day.
Since Augustine, two issues which are associated with just war theory have been distinguished:
I. Jus ad bullum
II. Jus in bello
JUS AD BELLUM
Refers to the circumstances under which it is right to engage in warfare. Augustine came up with to conditions:
1) There must be authorisation form a legitimate authority; emperors were seen to be divinely appointed and thus were a legitimate authority
2) There must be a just cause for going to war
St Thomas Aquinas later added a third criterion:
3) There must be a right intention
However, these criteria do not hold in today’s post-modern society because:
• The idea that the feudal structure of society is divinely ordained does not hold with modern democracy. Could Hitler or Saddam Hussein for example be classed as a legitimate authority?
• Determining what constitutes a just cause to go to war is problematic. For example, the mistreatment of Germany after the First World War appears to justify the Second World War.
• In almost all cases, both sides will claim the right intention on the grounds that they consider it is their ‘right’ to go to war
US CATHOLIC BISHOPS
In the 1970’s US catholic bishops set out their own views on just war theory and built upon the foundations set by Augustine and Aquinas. Beyond the first three criteria for jus ad bullum, they added four further conditions:
4) The comparison of justice of the claims made by both sides
5) That war is a last resort
6) That there is a reasonable possibility of success
7) That there is reasonable proportion between the injury suffered and the pain and death caused by war
JUS IN BELLO
Refers to the rules of just conflict and how a just war should be fought
The Catholic Bishops proposed two conditions for how a just war should be fought:
1) Proportionality – the way the war is fought must be proportionate to the suffering and injury inflicted as a result of the war. It would not be proportionate for example to use biological weapons to solve a minor dispute.
2) Discrimination – a distinction should be drawn between innocent civilians and those engaged in warfare. The lives of innocent civilians should not be taken directly.
Augustine commented that wars should not be fought with hatred but with a desire to defeat evil and injustice
However, these conditions for a jus war are equally problematic:
• Firstly, those concerned with the proportionality with which the war is fought overlook the millions that die annually due to third-world debt in proportion to the vast amounts of money spent on warfare
• Secondly, drawing a line that distinguishes an innocent civilian from the initiating minority in power directly responsible for war is difficult. For example, to what extent can tax payers be held accountable for their contribution to the war effort or the consenting majority? And in any case, those believing they are going to war on justified grounds will consider themselves guiltless. Who can judge which side is guilty?
THE IMPLICATIONS OF JUST WAR THEORY TODAY
Just war theory is yet to be able to deal with modern issues such as the IRA bombings and the ‘freedom fighters’ of the former regime in South Africa. At the front of these challenges to just war theory is the injustice of the division of resources between developed and undeveloped countries, and the justification in warfare as a solution to inequality.
Kant and Bentham in Iraq
The Bush administration and its supporters based the Iraq war on an apparent threat to the US posed by the possession of WMD and ties with al-Qaeda. However, to date no such evidence of WMD or ties with al-Qaeda have been uncovered; and even if they had they would not necessarily pose a threat to the US. Since the war, the Bush administration and supporters have changed their basis for justification for the war from the elimination of a potential threat of WMD to the elimination of Saddam’s evil regime.
Although Kantian and Utilitarian principles were devised on an individual basis, not a national basis, they do attempt to provide a rational basis for the way in which we justify our actions and therefore, on some level, they can be applied to warfare. By changing their argument for the justification of war the Bush administration is effectively pursuing a Utilitarian, teleological approach the ethical dilemma by using the end to justify the means.
Utilitarianism is difficult to define as a single theory since it is more of a family of theories with different variants. It is concerned with the maximisation of utility, so a Utilitarian would justify war in those incidences that lead to increased net utility rather than decreased net utility. Calculating the effect on net utility of the Iraq war would therefore involve a weighing up of the costs of those lives lost and the benefits of the elimination of any threat posed to the U.S., the fall of an evil regime and the installation of a democratic government. But knowing where to apply the measuring tool of utility is difficult and depends on the branch of Utilitarianism advocated and how it defines goodness. A good place to start is to explore the effects on peace and security since increases in utility are not possible in the absence of peace and security. Although it should be noted, that peace and security do not yield increases in utility in all cases, for example; Hitler provided the Germans with temporary security but his actions lead to a reduction in net utility. Some Utilitarian theories might be more interested in the effects of war on individual rights and inequalities than overall utility e.g. Preference Utilitarianism.
Applying Kantian Ethics to war is more straight forward. Kant’s ethic, which focuses on the good will, draws parallels with Aquinas’ contribution to his jus ad bellum condition which requires there to be a right intention. In applying Kant’s categorical imperatives, it is difficult to find a maxim that could universalise killing – it is a contradiction in the law of the will and the law of nature. Equally, killing others for a greater good or to reach an ultimate purpose does not meet Kant’s requirement to treat humans as ends in themselves and not as a means to an end. However, Kant was pessimistic towards the human race and deemed the practice of warfare morally permissible in the non-ideal circumstances in which states might find themselves. Kant universalises the maxim ‘To preserve one’s lie is duty’ thus justifying violent action when one’s life is threatened. If everyone adopted this maxim and only fought to preserve their own life, no one would have to fight and Kant’s theory of duty would be successful in eliminating war.
Central to Kant’s theory on war was a third stage of the Just War theory. Whilst Just War theory remains preoccupied with jus ad bellum and jus in bello, it neglects Kant’s third stage concerned with the transition from war to peace and the bringing about of justice post conflict – jus post bellum. This underlines Kant’s concern with duty and the motives for actions rather than their consequences and ensures that the original reasons for going to war are achieved after the war has been fought. In the case of Iraq jus post bellum is particularly relevant and demands inquiry into the installation of a democratic government and the restoration of peace and security in Iraq. Although neglected by the Just War theory, jus post bellum is fundamental to its ultimate function, which is to eliminate war, or at least reduce the incidence of war in the future.
Each approach however has its limitations. A Kantian for example might universalise pacifism when his country is threatened with extinction, whilst a Utilitarian might justify enslaving a human being if it lead to greater net happiness – hence it is called a swine ethic. In any ethical case however, elements of both approaches are required in order to justify a moral action. Decisions must respect rights whilst, at the same time, they have to be pragmatic and cannot be seen to make things worse. One might conclude that the agent-centred morality of Virtue Ethics provides a better approach to warfare, as it directs the focus away from intentions and consequences and looks at what a virtuous person might do in a particular situation.
blog comments powered by Disqus
RELIGIOUS STUDIES TEACHER RESOURCE NEWSLETTER
Sign up for tutor2u's free Religious Studies Teacher Resource Newsletter
