Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Just war theory principles
Just war theory principles
Just war theory principles
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Just war theory principles
Introduction
As followers of the Lord Jesus, Christians have sought to follow the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6) while living in the reality of a fallen world. Whereas many out of frustration or ignorance have compartmentalized the use of force from their faith, this is unnecessary, since there is a rich tradition of Christian thought on the subject. We will examine the just war concept from a historical philosophical perspective, focusing upon the teachings of Thomas Aquinas as found in his Summa Theologica. The goal of this paper is to explain this subject to someone unfamiliar with this subject. 1
Thesis
The thesis of this paper is that the classical just war doctrine hammered out from Scripture by the early Fathers, organized by Thomas Aquinas and honed by the Reformers, offers a cogent answer to the question of whether violence can ever be virtuous, and stands opposed to liberal pacifism and the moral realist theories. Just war doctrine teaches that self-defense is rooted in the character of God, the God who hates evil and who restrains evildoers, often through the hands of His children.
The Subject
Until recently, traditional Christian teaching in all its major branches has held that violence can be worthy of Christian support when certain criteria are met (jus ad bellum). This theory is known as “just war” ethics. But with the rise of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, the just war tradition was challenged by liberal pacifism, which argued that the teachings of Christ absolutely forbade violence. Twentieth century neo-orthodox philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr (A.D. 1892-1971) sought a middle ground between the liberal pacifism and the realities of a fallen world. While agreeing with his liberal colleagues that al...
... middle of paper ...
...he virtuous use of force, out of love for Him, and love for our neighbor.
Works Cited
Paul Allen, “The Obama Niebuhr connection” The Toronto Star (14 June 2008).
Aquinas. The "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas Aquinas. [S.l.]: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1941.
Augustine and Philip Schaff. St. Augustine's The City of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.
Ambrose. Writings of Saint Ambrose. Washington: Catholic University of America, 1954.
Clement, and William Wilson. The Writings of Clement of Alexandria. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1867.
Eusebius, and William John Ferrar. The Proof of the Gospel. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001.
Origenes, and Frederick Crombie. Origen Contra Celsum. Edinburgh: Clark, 1872.
“Obama's Favorite Theologian? A Short Course on Reinhold Niebuhr” Pew Research (26 June 2009).
This takes us to the concept of just war. Aristotle saw just war as a means to a higher goal. You don't just fight the war to win the war there needs to be a purpose to fighting the war. He goes on to tell us how others view just war. The Romans said war was just only when conducted by the state, and only accompanied by a declaration of hostilities, meaning war had to be declared on someone. Rebellions and revolutions were not considered just wars. The Japanese did not define when war was just or proper. Early Christians rejected war; this came from the effort to be more Christ like, the Golden Rule, due unto others as you would have them do to you. Later the Christians could no longer be pacifists; they were going to have to go to war sometime after Constantine became emperor and declared Christianity as the main religion of the time.
Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian Realism has many components to it. Post World War I, he moved away from his usual liberal/pacifist way of thinking after seeing that the war was based on power control and economical concerns, and this was something he did not want to support. He wanted to follow a more proactive way of doing things instead of just waiting for something to happen. Liberal’s pacifist way of thinking utilizing non-intervention ways to deal with evil in the world was naive and could not be used anymore. By doing nothing would allow evil to continue to control everything. According to Niebuhr, humans in this world are self-glorifying, sinful in nature, and will never be equal to God, but should strive through God to be just and do what is moral.
2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
I found two other ideas, which the “Gentleman” propagated, interesting. Firstly, the idea of self-defense is evil that is based on the philosophical justification that life is most precious and that if one were to kill, it would be hypocrisy. The “Gentleman” essentially argues that any nation cannot defend itself without killing, and thus is unable to j...
Morgan, G. Campbell. Studies in the Four Gospels. 3rd ed. Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1931.
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
All in all, when religious war were happening the church try to verify the ethic of war, take into some wars to be self-defense. Christians justified Jesus “Prince of Peace” war-making by noting that Jesus himself used violence on at least one occasion, described “in all four gospels”. They point to Old Testament precedents, and the New Testament to open the door to force. John the Baptists declares that soldiers do not have to abandoned all military activity.
Stanton, Graham. Gospel Truth?: New Light on Jesus and the Gospels. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. Paperback.
The Just war theory is a doctrine that has been studied by all sorts of leaders, religions, and especially military leaders. Basically it is a doctrine that consists of all sorts of military ethics of war and broken down into two parts, Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Just ad bellum is consisted of 5 parts, the first part is legitimate authority and what that means is that the people who are making the decision of war are recognized officials and understand the strategies of war. The second reason is for a just cause, having the right reasons for going to war and understanding that violent aggression is not the plan. The third is that the last resort is going to war, and being able to understand that before a country starts a war that can be solved in less violent ways. The fourth option is prospect of success, yes winning the war is a success but how many lives can be lost and still count that as a success. The final option is the political proportionality and that is when the wrong of war is proportionally less then the wars cons. I believe that if all non violent options of Just ad bellum have been tried and were given a fair shot and the only viable option is to go to war then going to war is acceptable. But if all non violent option shave not been exhausted and war is nothing but a quick decision this can be considered wrong and
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
Carson, D, & Moo, D. (2005) An introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. 2nd ed. New York City, NY: HarperOne, 2010.