3.1 War and Peace

Question 1

War

Answer 1

Armed conflict that takes place over a period of time and involves violence, destruction and economic instability.
1. Conflict between two or more states
2. A civil war between citizens of the same country

Question 2

Peace

Answer 2

The absence of war and state of harmony where people can live safely

Question 3

Pacifism

Answer 3

The belief that violence can never be justified under any circumstances

Question 4

Absolute Pacifism

Answer 4

The belief that there is no flexibility in the belief that war can never be justified

Question 5

The Old Testament view of war

Answer 5

• God seems to sanction the waging of war.
• The people were allowed to engage in warfare, but only when directed by God.
• The act of war was moral if it rose from a divine command
  ‘When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it’ - Deuteronomy

Question 6

The New Testament view of war

Answer 6

• More about defeating evil.
• Revelation: passage looks at battles between good and evil in an eschatological perspective: it is about the end of the world, judgement day and the victory of good over evil.

Two main views on war dominate the history of humanity:
1. The notion of just war: the argument in social situations war can be just or moral.
2. Pacifisms: in absolute form the argument that war is never justified (regardless of circumstances)

Question 8

JUST CAUSE (jus ad bellum)

Answer 8

• A war may be waged in response to an act of aggression already committed or to pre-empt one that is anticipated.
• A build-up of arms (weapons) does not necessarily constitute aggression.
• UTILITARIANS would argue that a pre-emptive strike deters aggressors and therefore secures the greatest happiness for the greatest number

Question 8

The just war theory

Answer 8

• An attempt to provide a moral frame work for war.
• One of the main thinkers behind just war was AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO and some of his ideas were later developed by AQUINAS.

Augustine lived when parts of the Roman Empire were under threat - making him consider the morality of war & whether there could be moral values embedded in the pursuit and undertaking of war.
Augustine considered
JUST AD BELLUM - just cause for war
JUS IN BELLO - just conduct in war
Modern theorists third perspective
JUS POST BELLUM - right conduct after war

Question 8

Augustine Quote

Answer 8

‘We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but go to war that we may have peace’

Question 8

LAST RESORT (jus ad bellum)

Answer 8

• It is important to attempt to resolve the situation through all means possible before war e.g. diplomacy.
• This was an issue with the allied invasion of Iraq in 2003, not every alternate means had been explored.

Question 8

Jus ad Bellum - explained

Answer 8

Augustine identified four criteria in order to decide whether a nation has a moral right to go to war against another.
Aquinas later added a fifth criterion.

Question 9

LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY (jus ad bellum)

Answer 9

• Last resort links to the criterion of proper authority. The decision to go to war must be made by a legitimate authority such as an elected government.
• Claims of legitimate authority in the past have been highly controversial.

Question 10

RIGHT INTENTION (jus ad bellum)

Answer 10

• Why do we want to go to war, to conquer? To achieve peace? For Augustine the only right intention is to seek the good and overcome evil.
• If a war is fought out of self-interest this undermines any sense of justice.

Question 11

PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS (jus ad bellum)

Answer 11

• For a war to be just, the chances of it achieving its aims must be significant.
• If there is a just cause and a right intention, there must also be reasonable change of success.
• Sometimes it would seem morally necessary to stand up against an aggressive neighbour or to fight it even when it seems that victory is not possible.

Question 12

Jus in bello - explained

Answer 12

Is it really possible to have just conduct in a war?
Three criteria apply: discrimination, proportionality, and responsibility.

Question 13

DISCRIMINATION (jus in bello)

Answer 13

• Discrimination concerns the question of who is a legitimate target in war.
• It is unjust to attack indiscriminately, as non-combatants are outside the field of war.

Question 14

PROPORTIONALITY (jus in bello)

Answer 14

• Any offensive action should be proportional to the objective desired, with minimal destruction and casualties.
• This position is broadly utilitarian in that it seeks to minimise overall suffering e.g. only military targets should be attacked.

Question 15

RESPONSIBILITY (jus in bello)

Answer 15

• Should a nation be accountable for unforeseen damages or consequences if the intention was to produce good consequences and the bad effects were not intended?
• Does the good of war outweigh the damage inflicted?
• We also need to consider the morality of obeying orders when no one knows those orders to be immoral e.g. the Nuremburg trials of leading Nazis.

Question 16

Utilitarianism on JUS IN BELLO

Answer 16

• Utilitarian might try and justify war on the basis that it would lead to greatest happiness for the greatest number, but whose happiness are we taking into account? That of the victor?
• The principle of utility allows that torture might lead to a greater good but rule utilitarian’s might disagree e.g. the consequences of allowing the ill treatment of prisoners.
• Rule utilitarian’s would ask whether a law restricting some types of weapons, such as chemical or nuclear weapons, might lead to a greater good.

Question 17

Situation ethics & NML on JUS IN BELLO

Answer 17

• SE could accept the idea of a just war if it is carried out for the sake of agape.

-NML might find some conflict between the primary precepts of the preservation of life and an ordered society.

Question 18

Jus post bellum - explained

Answer 18

• Just war theorists argue that victory should not provide a licence for imposing harsh measures or allowing commercial interests to dictate the peace.
• The aim should be to conclude a peace on terms that are not likely to cause further war through bitterness or resentment.
• Just war theorists argue that any trials should be held in neutral countries with neutral parties presiding and that all atrocities committed in war should be investigated regardless of victory or defeat.

Question 19

Evaluating just war theory

Answer 19

• If wars are fought then in seems desirable to make some attempt to differentiate just from unjust conflicts and to create criteria by which to judge them.
• In modern warfare, many nations now having nuclear weapons make the criteria for just war redundant because of the pose they risk and the fact they lead to indiscriminate killing.
• A moral inconsistency of just war theory? Justice is about equality and fairness, but war is about winning or losing.