Just War theory and its links to Natural

Just War theory and its links to Natural Law

Just War theory and taking life • The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things: • taking human life is seriously wrong • states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice • protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence

'Just', or merely 'permissible'? • The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it's actually a good thing. • But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil.

Just War: Origins of Thought • St Augustine of Hippo (4 th C. ) distinguished between – Private retaliation (not justified in Christianity) – War pursued against those who are a threat to peace (sometimes justified) • His time saw the birth of a brand new notion: Christendom • Christendom=Christ’s domains • The notion of a greater whole that was sacred and may be threatened internally or externally St Augustine of Hippo, 354 -430. He lived right at the end of the Roman Empire in the West.

Just War: Origins in Christianity • St Thomas of Aquinas (13 th C. ) developed the Christian doctrine of Just War • He laid out the following conditions: • • – Declared by the sovereign – Just cause – those attacked should deserve this – Right intention – the advancement of good or avoidance of evil Aquinas lived at a time when numerous small wars between city states were common … not long after the reconquest of Sicily from Muslim rule St Thomas Aquinas, 1225 – 1274. He was a Dominican priest and scholar.

Just War - preservation of innocent life • Both Natural Law and Just War theory have their origins in Thomas Aquinas. Primary precept = preserve innocent life Just war does not give you a set of boxes to tick to say if war is just, its aim is restraint, the preservation of life and lasting peace.

Just War criteria • Other thinkers developed the concept of Just War… • • Just cause Declared by lawful authority. Right intention Last resort Reasonable chance of success Innocents should not be harmed Only appropriate force should be used These are sometimes called the Jus ad Bellum criteria – criteria to be in place before war is prosecuted These are sometimes called the Jus in Bello criteria – criteria for moral conduct of the war once started

A developing theory… • In Ethics and War: Beyond Just War Theory Mervyn Frost argues that ‘In the global war on terror those using violence will have to be able to demonstrate that they really are serious about defending the values in whose name they are fighting, rather than just using the words to justify terror against terror. ’

Criteria explained • • Declared by lawful authority… … since only a lawful authority can act on behalf of the whole people Restricts the number of groups that can ethically wage war For example, it stops wars declared by rebels who've overthrown a legal government being considered ethical President Roosevelt signs the Declaration of War against Japan, 1941

Hiroshima & Nagasaki • • In the early morning hours of August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber named Enola Gay was headed north by northwest toward Hiroshima, Japan. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained a mass of uranium about the size of a cricket ball. The explosion it unleashed was the equivalent of that of 20, 000 tons of TNT. The devastation was horrific, but Japan refused to surrender.

US Warning Leaflet Nagasaki • • • America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet. We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29 s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate. We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. President Truman took the decision to drop the bombs

The Death Toll • • • No one will ever know for certain how many died as a result of the attack on Hiroshima. Some 70, 000 people probably died as a result of initial blast, heat, and radiation effects. The five-year death total may have reached or even exceeded 200, 000, as cancer and other long-term effects took hold. The same grim picture unfolded in Nagasaki, the second city to be bombed. After this, The Emperor of Japan overruled the military and ordered the government to surrender to the Allied Forces.

An eyewitness… • I threw myself into a frantic search • for my family, casting about in the still-hot rubble. Before long, the tips of my shoes were burned so that my toes stuck out, and my hands became swollen with blisters. Looking along the road, near a neighbour's house, I found a charred copse that seemed to be my wife. The dead baby on her back I took to be our one-year-old daughter Takako. However, I never was able to find our eight-year-old son Tateki, or our elder daughter Makiko. Tsuneo Tomimatsu, Nagasaki.

An eyewitness… • • Houses and trees were levelled as far as the eye could see, and fires began breaking out in the ruins. At the roadside I saw the corpse of a man who had been leading a horse cart, still on his feet, with his hair standing on end like wire…. The river was filled with the dead and halfdead; burned children were screaming, ‘Mommy!’ and mothers searched for their children, calling their names in faltering voices. Ms. Hide Kurokawa, Nagasaki

Tricycle

Evaluation • Was President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs justified? • How did it preserve innocent life? • Did it prevent more deaths? • Was it merely a Utilitarian decision with unknown consequences?

Sermon on the Mount Matt. 5 You have heard that it Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God Exegesis: Context – new Kingdom values fulfilling the OT teachings Peacemaking ≠ peacekeeping Focus more on personal living rather than on war was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. ‘ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Exegesis: Discussion Points Do any of these two passages shed any light on morality in war situations? Again, focus more on personal living rather than on war The passage doesn’t say: If someone stabs you on the right of the chest…

Cycle of Violence Matthew 26 Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place, " Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. ” Exegesis: Quite obvious – (unjustified? ) violence leads to more violence Has a message for both personal conflict and for national conflict

Is the only way to preserve innocent life to be a pacifist? Does Just War theory support every view from contingent pacifism to militarism?

In war: Conscientious objectors or medical staff Quakers Anti-gossip… Is it true? Is it hurtful? Is it necessary? Anti-slavery Founded in 17 th C. by George Fox and friends Persecuted by English Church Dedicated to simplicity and peace Society of Friends

Case Study: Mikhail Kalashnikov This the man who designed a rifle that. . . will inflict a fatal wound at 300 yards can be bought for as little as $100 on the world's black markets will function even if dirty, wet or unoiled has been used to kill most of the fifty million or so people in small wars since 1945 will spray thirty bullets in three seconds fires 'tumbling' bullets which make a small entry hole into flesh and yet tear out a massive exit; is light enough to be carried by a is the weapon of choice for many small armies & terrorist child organisations (some 70 million have been sold);

Case Study… Name: Automatic Kalashnikov assault rifle, first made in 1947 - hence, AK-47 Inventor: Mikhail Kalashnikov, born 1919 What Kalashnikov says when asked about his invention. . . 'When Germany invaded, I saw my comrades in pain. They were being wheeled into hospital, injured in defence of their Motherland against the Fascists. Courage was not enough. The Nazis had superior armoury. I wanted to redress the balance. ' 'My life's not been easy. I wanted my invention to serve peace. I didn't want it to make war easier … If it was not guns, it would be knives or axes. Guns are not guilty. People are guilty.

Case Study… Mikhail Kalashnikov has hardly made a penny from his invention. In 1990 he met Eugene Stoner, who designed the M-16 (the closest thing to an American equivalent of the AK-47), and was shocked by the fact that Stoner had his own jet whilst he himself could not afford the price of a plane ticket to Washington. If you were to sit in judgement of Kalashnikov, of what, if anything, would you accuse him? Give reasons for your answer.

Does Just War Theory succeed in preserving innocent life?