The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
Even though many credit St. Augustine with founding the just war theory, this view is partially misleading. Augustine synthesized ideas from classical Greco-Roman and Christian philosophy to construct his theory, so credit can also be given to philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero. Since then, it has been modified by many notable thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, and Francisco Suarez (Orend). Technicalities aside, Augustine was a pivotal figure in developing our contemporary understanding of this tradition (Massaro 70).
The just war theory can be broken down into three components: jus ad bellum, jus en bello, and jus post bellum. Translated from Latin, these mean “justice before war, justice in war, and justice after war.” In this way, the Catholic Church is able to reconcile Jesus’s lofty teachings about loving your neighbor and causing no harm with protecting the innocent (Massaro 104).
Jus ad bellum is mainly addressed towards people in power, since it is up to them to declare war (Orend). Leaders must use every method at their disp...
... middle of paper ...
...ts in our Constitution. However, these actions must only be taken only in extreme need and as a last resort, when all other methods have failed.
Works Cited
Coles, Robert. Dorothy Day: A Radical Devotion. Harper and Rowe, 1952. 15-77. Print.
Kingsbury, Kathleen. "The Value of a Human Life: $129,000." Time. Time Inc., 20 May 2008. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
Klejment, Anne, and Nancy L. Roberts. American Catholic Pacifism: The Influence of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement. Westport CT: Praeger, 1996. 74-80. Print.
"Life and Dignity of the Human Person." United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
Massaro, Thomas, S.J. Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching in Action. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012. 70+. Print.
Orend, Brian. "War." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 28 July 2005. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
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.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
Lee, Patrick. Abortion and Unborn Human Life. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2010.
The idea of Just War Theory was suggested by Ambrose (Perry, “Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective”), formulated by Augustine, and finally refined by Aquinas. Just War Theory was not made to justify a war (since everyone can say that even total destruction was just), but rather it brings war under control of justice, so that when all nations practice it, war would eventually cease
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
Augustine illustrated on the prevailing Roman doctrine of justum bellum and the Old Testament stories of wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as demanded by God. Augustine aimed 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 backed greatly to the discussion of what makes warfare justifiable right up until the modern day.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
“The just war tradition is typically evoked when discussing the decision to launch a war (justice of war) and when evaluating the conduct of forces during war (justice in war). But the tradition does not explicitly specify principles for assessing justice after war, nor does it discuss state obligations upon achieving military victory.”
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
There have been some religions (ones such as Islam and Christianity) that could have once defended war in a time where defense of their own was all that mattered; however, there are other religions (ones such as Taoism and Buddhism) that have chastised and disapproved the very idea of war at all accounts possible. This is because each different view on war by any religion matters on the type of beliefs and rules it follow, and it these various religious views on war I have come across through the documents given that I will discuss throughout this essay:
Clausewitz Assignment Carl Von Clausewitz was a Prussian general and military theorist, whose work Vom Kriege (1832 On War) became one of the most respected classics on military strategy. In this classic, he had 28 sections that all discussed what there is to a war. He had an ideology of what a war was, and gave a thorough meaning to it, without perplexing the definition like publicists did. In his own words, “War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our war”. He compared “war” to “two wrestlers”, in regards to using physical force to have the opponent submit to his will.
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.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.