Just War Theory and initial questions
What is war?
Is war ever morally justified?
Facts:
21st century 191 million people killed directly or indirectly by war.
WWI – 15 million, WWII – 27 milion
400 wars since the end of WWII.
Why go to war:
Self defense against aggressor
Desire to expand one’s territory
Religious reasons aka Holy War
“Most wars have mixed motives. For example, the current war on terrorism is a war in response to the threat of aggression that also has ideological/religious undertones in it that re portrayed by both sides as a war of good against evil with each side claiming to be doing God’s will.”(630)
Terrorism:
What is it – “involves the use of politically motivated violence to target noncombatants and create intimidation.”(630)
Used by groups who have a minority voice that want to be heard on large scale
Note on jihad: In Islam it does not mean holy war, this is something that has been assigned to it in the past couple of years in America.
Greater jihad: Struggle with self against own internal evil
Just War Theory:
Put together into a system for the first time by Aquinas. Changes the ‘eye for an eye’ justice theory to accommodate the possibility of restitution, while also implementing rules to make sure that the war is not fought with evil intentions.
Jus ad bellum:
1. War must be declared and waged by a legitimate authority
Hobbes and the state of nature:
“In civil society the authority to use violence is transferred to the sovereign whose power is absolute.”(631)
How do we determine if someone has authority?
2. There must be a just cause for going to war
3. War must be the last resort
4. There must be a reasonable prospect of success
5. Ther violence used must be proportional to the wrong being resisted
Jus in Bello
1. Noncombatants should not be intentionally targeted
Koran’s comments: wrongful aggressor, noncombatants, and last resort
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Principle of Double effect:
“According to this principle if a course of action, such as bombing a town, is likely to have two quite different effects, one legitimate and the other not, the action may still be permissible if the legitimate effect was intended and the illicit effect (e.g. the killing of civilians) unintended.”
2. The tactics used must be a proportional response to the injury being redressed
What about Jus ante bellum?
Is war ever morally justified?
Facts:
21st century 191 million people killed directly or indirectly by war.
WWI – 15 million, WWII – 27 milion
400 wars since the end of WWII.
Why go to war:
Self defense against aggressor
Desire to expand one’s territory
Religious reasons aka Holy War
“Most wars have mixed motives. For example, the current war on terrorism is a war in response to the threat of aggression that also has ideological/religious undertones in it that re portrayed by both sides as a war of good against evil with each side claiming to be doing God’s will.”(630)
Terrorism:
What is it – “involves the use of politically motivated violence to target noncombatants and create intimidation.”(630)
Used by groups who have a minority voice that want to be heard on large scale
Note on jihad: In Islam it does not mean holy war, this is something that has been assigned to it in the past couple of years in America.
Greater jihad: Struggle with self against own internal evil
Just War Theory:
Put together into a system for the first time by Aquinas. Changes the ‘eye for an eye’ justice theory to accommodate the possibility of restitution, while also implementing rules to make sure that the war is not fought with evil intentions.
Jus ad bellum:
1. War must be declared and waged by a legitimate authority
Hobbes and the state of nature:
“In civil society the authority to use violence is transferred to the sovereign whose power is absolute.”(631)
How do we determine if someone has authority?
2. There must be a just cause for going to war
3. War must be the last resort
4. There must be a reasonable prospect of success
5. Ther violence used must be proportional to the wrong being resisted
Jus in Bello
1. Noncombatants should not be intentionally targeted
Koran’s comments: wrongful aggressor, noncombatants, and last resort
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Principle of Double effect:
“According to this principle if a course of action, such as bombing a town, is likely to have two quite different effects, one legitimate and the other not, the action may still be permissible if the legitimate effect was intended and the illicit effect (e.g. the killing of civilians) unintended.”
2. The tactics used must be a proportional response to the injury being redressed
What about Jus ante bellum?
posted by Charles Carlson at
10:19 AM
