War is a common feature of mankind and can be found throughout history. It is almost as if conflict is inevitable. However questions about the validity and morality of these conflicts are asked before, during and after the war. For this topic area you are going to have to have some sort of knowledge of a current war and situation as well as some knowledge of them in the past. I strongly urge you to start watching the news as there is nothing an examiner likes more in ethics than to see you apply your ethical knowledge to a current situation. I would suggest you look at either the Israeli situation or the US reaction to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The lives of millions of people are affected by warfare and therefore it is a fitting thing to study in relation to ethics. Issues we will have to look at will include:

Modern methods of warfare

Military service

Role of peacekeeping troops

Globalisation

Role of the UN

 

War is not new – there are many references to conflicts in the OT which clearly recognised the importance of war – Israel was often called on to fight the enemies of God – so much so that in the OT we find the first rules regarding conflict – Duet 24:5 – newly married men are exempt from the army. We see that there were armies under King David and King Saul. Wars in those days were not pretty - - in Deut 2:34 we hear that the armies captured every town and put to death men and women as well as destroying large areas, in Joshua 10:40 we find that " Joshua spared no one, everyone was put to death. This was what the Lord God of Israel commanded"

With the teaching of Jesus being established a radical rethink occurred – war and violence were regarded as wrong for the first 250 years after Christ – the example of the reaction of Jesus after his arrest was used and Christians did not resist when they were taken to the lions. In 313 CE the Emperor Constantine decreed that Christianity should become the religion of the Roman Empire – in 410 the Romans, who had once been thought of as indestructible, were facing defeat by the Visigoths – many regarded the weakening of Rome as a result of the conversion to Christianity. Augustine turned to the OT to find ways to justify fighting in conflicts and he put forward TWO conditions:

The war had to be started by a legitimate authority – in this case the Roman state (which was considered as being put in power by God)

There had to be a just cause

 

Augustine sees purpose of war as punishing wrongdoing and bringing peace – if this was the purpose then all methods of war were acceptable – including torture.

Aquinas offers a further qualification –

There has to be right intention

 

 

During the 20^th century it was decided that this criteria was not enough – for example Germany could rightfully claim that it fulfilled the criteria with WW1 – the advent of the League of Nations and the Geneva convention led to developments in the Just War Theory. The immediate problem arises that both sides in a conflict may claim legitimate authority and right intention so the crucial factor becomes establishing what is a just cause –

When is it right to go to war? – Jus ad Bellum

How should a war be fought? – Jus in Bello

 

This was developed by catholic bishops in the USA in 1983 who set out what a Just War should be:

Conditions for Just ad Bellum (when is it right to go to war)

There must be a just cause – "War is permissible only to confront a real and certain danger, that is to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights" – this last statement causes difficulties as it leaves open the question of what do we mean by human rights- this is subjective and can allow a country to go to war to preserve "decent human existence" for its people e.g. Argentinean invasion of the Falklands

War must be declared by a competent and legal authority – this stems from both Augustine and Aquinas who claimed that the authority must be legal and that no private individual or private armies were justified in going to war. However any government could claim that they have competent and legal authority (Hitler/ Milosovic) – maybe the only real legal authority and acceptable authority should be the UN – many would dismiss this today)

Comparative justice – the justice of the claims of both sides must be compared – this means that both sides have to be listened to - very difficult as both sides have often got a list of valid reasons for conflict – problem also that if it was the case that you could see your opponents view then there would be no war anyway!

There must be right intention in going to war – Augustine refers to this indirectly by stating that the intention must be to bring about peace – however this is difficult to ascertain – for example Mussolini stated that his invasion of Ethiopia was justified by the catholic church as it would allow the spread of Christianity in that country.

War must be a last resort – for instance all possibilities of negotiation and mediation must first be explored before war is resorted to.

There must be reasonable probability of success – the catholic bishops claim that this is " to prevent irrational force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportional or fruitless" one problem that occurs here is that this means that there can be an overwhelming build up of forces before a conflict meaning that more civilians will be killed ( Afghanistan)

There must be reasonable proportion between the injustice suffered and the death and suffering of war - - this means that the damage that is inflicted must be in proportion to the good that is expected to result – you cannot drop a missile on one village just because a member of the enemy is hiding there – it is always important to maintain a view of ones own and the enemies humanity. This allows for teleological and deontological ethics to combine.

 

The conditions met by Jus in Bello are

The way in which a war must be fought has been a constant source of debate – a Vatican statement says

..Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their populations is a crime against Hod and man himself. It merits unhesitating and unequivocal condemnation"

There have been throughout history numerous attempts to rule out certain weapons – the problem being that these were only applied to war between Christians – not between non Christians and Christians. Today we see numerous treaties about biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

Proportionality – this not only refers to the justice of waging war but also the conduct of war – the way in which war is conducted may also be out of proportion to the reasons the war is waged – US bombing of Afghanistan?

Discrimination – this is concerned with the killing of civilians and those fighting in the conflict as well as the treatment of prisoners of war. The Geneva convention of 1977 states that starvation as a means of warfare is not allowed as it does not discriminate, neither is carpet bombing (Allied planes during WW2) or German U boats sinking food convoys to Britain during WW2. There must also be discussion about the accidental deaths that can occur and the intentional deaths. The Catholic bishops state that – "The lives of innocent people may never be taken directly, regardless of the purpose of alleged for doing so". Problem is that it is far from clear who is innocent – were all Germans not innocent in WW2 as they had supported Hitler and his policies? Robert Holmes "On War and Morality" distinguishes between those people who are guilty and those who are not innocent – he believes that guilt involves a direct and purposive action on the part of the offender:

 

Instigators of wrongdoing ( government leaders)

Agents of wrongdoing ( military commanders and combatant soldiers)

Contributors to the war effort () armament manufacturers, military researchers and taxpayers)

Those who approve of the war without contributing in any significant way

Non contributors and non supporters ( children and those who refuse to obey the laws including the insane)

 

Holmes states that the fact that the Just War exists makes war possible and that ultimately war is WRONG. He states that nations since the 5^th century have used Augistine and later Aquinas to commit horrendous acts – he states that there must be correlation between these wars and discussion on just war – if no conditions had been supplied then there would have been no wars. This could be countered that there have been many acts of war by non-Christians who have not been influenced by the Just War Theory.

In 1987 George Weigel challenged the approach of the Catholic bishops – he stated that they had just tried to justify their own position by making the conditions more complicated and not challenging Augustine and the fact that he might be wrong – these justifications are not clear cut and can still be used by an aggressor (Hitler) – so much depends on the individual viewpoint.

Gulf War – this was stated to be "Just" by the church and yet despite efforts to protect civilians (with the use of laser guided missiles and "smart" bombs) innocents did get killed – bombs missed targets, civilians were used as a human shield. A further problem arises when we discuss what is a military target – power stations which may cripple the government of a country but will also leave innocent people with no power?

One solution suggested is tyrannacide – the disposal of a tyrant – Hitler or Hussein through assassination. For many Christians the murder of one man can be justified against the suffering of millions. This was the view of Bonhoeffer in WW2 – a committed pacifist who took part in the assassination attempt on Hitler

The issue of Pacifism also needs to be looked at – this is seen by many Christians as a higher way of life (note priests and monks are not allowed to fight!). The debate over pacifism was started by Augustine who said that Jesus had ruled out malitia (hatred) not militia (fighting) – many Christians disagree with this e.g. Quakers movement. One argument used is that in order for a state to fight a just war they must maintain an almost impossibly high moral standard – this is not possible!

Some argue that the Christian view on war should be taken back to the pre-Augistine days when all violence was regarded as wrong – the fact that war is sometimes necessary is immoral and non ethical as ethics demands a free choice – there may be reasons for declaring war but they can never be JUST reasons as justice involves fairness and brings about equality – war does not do this!

Some Christians will become conscientious objectors. They are against any forms of violence on the grounds of pacifism or on the grounds that the conditions of a Just war have not been met.

The problem with pacifism is that there are occasions when innocent people have to be protected – this is the case in WW2 when Hitler could have feasibly taken over the whole of Europe and slaughtered even more people if Britain had not resisted. It could be argued that if Israel did not have an efficient fighting machine then it too would be wiped out.

One possible solution is the role of the UN which seeks to be an unbiased body listening to all the grievances of the nations. However in reality this does not work – the UN is dominated by the rich nations who can implement their own policies and ideas.