Does the Just War Theory provide sufficient moral justification for Christians’ involvement in war?
The Just War Theory is a set of criteria that are used to judge whether a war is morally justifiable. It was St Augustine in the third century that formulated the Just War theory, and was formalised 10 centuries later by Thomas Aquinas. There are seven criteria by which a war can be judged to be just. Among the rules are Just Cause – there must be a very good reason for going to war, such as protecting your country from invasion. There should be a formal declaration of war by the legal government. It has to be the last resort and all other alternatives must be exhausted. There must be a reasonable chance of success and great care must be
…show more content…
This however is qualified by stating that war should be fought within certain rules to ensure that it is fought not only for sound moral reasons but also that it is fought in a morally defensible way. Thus they are justly and morally standing up for what they believe to be worth fighting for, in a moral way. The problems of morals are difficult enough when judging traditional warfare, but they are complicated further when applied to modern warfare with its nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Would it be morally right to stand by and watch while our families or the weak suffer?
There is also a confusing aspect in all of this, as Jesus states quite clearly in Matthew 5 that we should love our enemies and there seems to be many examples of God against war and violence. Yet, throughout the Old Testament, there are numerous examples of God supporting acts of extreme violence and destruction, seeming contradictory. Some would say that the Just War Theory is the best way to make sure that the war is as moral as possible and that they can justify this by referring to the Bible where we see that Jesus teaches us that we should fight against evil, “I came not to bring peace, but a sword”. It is our duty to obey the lawful authorities because they have been put there by God. If these
“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.
Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.
evil.'; (173) This is a contradiction in that war is justified if it is for the
However, some Christians will agree on conventional wars but not nuclear wars, this is because nuclear wars are seemed to be never justified. Nuclear war can cause innocent deaths in seconds after the explosion while conventional war can be controlled to not kill the innocent. Many Christians will argue nuclear war can never take place as it is against many evidence from biblical text, such as Matthew 5:38-48, where Jesus mentions how Christians should never being lead into violence and killing innocent people. Another biblical text is from Matthew 26:47-53 where Jesus told his disciple not to interfere the soldiers from arresting him, because violence should not be acted against with violence, this is taken not only for nuclear wars but conventional and any violent acts. However, freedom fighters known as terrorists fight for what they believe in can cause deaths of innocent people and conventional war is acceptable from Christians in order to stop it, as suggest from Mark 11:15-18 but nuclear war should not take place since it is no different form terrorists.
Others believe that if you fight in a war and you win then you will forever be remembered and honored, also that you should fight for your rights. The quote “Those who have died fighting for freedom are remembered” explains how you shouldn’t let people tell you what to do and if you fighting a war you will be honored and remembered. I reject this because, for the people who lose, nothing would happen to them. They wouldn’t be remembered, they would’ve died and the other side wouldn’t care. Therefore I disagree with the aggressive action.
A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their
The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)
St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.
One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.
The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. The circumstances of Just-War Theory must be of: Last Resort, Legitimate Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Right Intention, Proportionality, and Civilian Casualties.
According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be
I do agree that either inadvertently or not terrible things happen in the course of human warfare and ultimately actors do put their morality in parenthesis. However, allowing for it in the confines of the just war theory will not do. A moral code should apply to both ordinary and extraordinary situations. In fact, it is the extraordinary situations when the moral code finds its greatest value. If a “supreme emergency” allows for one to set aside their morals then the code governing morality is incomplete. This truth was evident after September 11, 2001 when the United States government put its moral code in parenthesis for the purpose of “enhanced interrogation”. What resulted was a failure of the just means of war.
“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper
The Just War Theory is a doctrine founded by Saint Augustine which has helped bring much discussion and debate to wars and the morality to fight in them. Wars and fights between people have gone on forever and are not perceived to stop anytime soon so it is important that some people thought about when and why they should ever fight. For many years Christians never part toke in this fighting due to teachings of the Bible and Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Saint Augustine would be one of the first to talk about how a Christian could be a soldier and serve God at the same time. Through this thought we would receive the Just War Theory which gave a set of requirements for someone to partake
Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum are the three stages of Just War Theory. Jus ad Bellum pertains to the ethics of starting a just war, with the principles being having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. Jus in Bello covers the conduct of individuals at war, with discrimination and proportionality being the guidelines. Meaning, only use force against legitimate targets in war, and only use an amount of force that is morally appropriate. Jus Post Bellum discusses how justice should be served following the cessation of a war, with discrimination being a big