Just War Theory Flashcards
Pacifism
- Killing is wrong regardless
- Preventing someone pursuing ‘the good’ is unnatural
- Not necessarily religious - humanistic
- Jesus: don’t allow evil to prevail
Realism
-Seeing things as they are not as they ought to be
-Accepts violent/ bad people
Limits on killing
Just War Theory as Pragmatic Approach
- Morality applies to international affairs
- Treat states as individuals
- Justice dictates correct conduct of war
- War as continuation of politics by other means - when politics breaks down
Multiple forms of killing
- Killing by Category: Soldiers/ combatants
- Intentional killing
- Foreseeable but unintended - knowledge some will die
- Foreseeable intentional killings = crimes of war
Origins of Just War Theory
Greek: Aristotle
-War rejected as end in itself - subject to justice (bad but can be justified)
-Aim: subjugating those capable of self-rule
Roman
-Way of man - fighting beasts: aim peace and be merciful
Christian
-St. Augustine - 5th C: Christian Pacifism in Roman State
-Aquinas - 13th C: Articulate natural law theory
-Vitoria - 16th C: Spanish Empire/ Mexico/ Peru
Led to the Christian modern view
Five Criteria of Medieval View
- Res: reason for going to war
- Justa causa: necessity/ proportionality/ defence - immediate threat
- Auctoritas: higher authority
- killing is sin (God authority then)
- killing justifiable only if altruistic - saving people from themselves, fighting against ungodly
- fight for Christian community - Animus: soul
- correct motive/ intent
- Restoring other to the moral law/ saving souls - Personae
- Principle of innocence/ immunity - categories exluded
Core of Just War Theory
- Killing is wrong
- Permitting injustice is wrong
- Killing sometimes necessary to defeat injustice
- War less bad than continued injustice - e.g. WW2 bombs - more deaths if continued?
Divisions of blame in war
Jus ad bellum - causes of going to war
Jus in bello - conduct of war/ actions
Jus post bellum - war crimes
Modern justice in war pillars
- Just cause
- Right intention
- Last resort
- Reasonable prospect of success
- Legitimate authority
- Proportionality
- Goal of peace
Rommel Paradox
- Can have a just war fought unjustly and vice versa
- Rommel: supported Hitler power but good in conduct of war
- Not just cause but just conduct
- Common assumption of soldiers = killing not murder in any war, BUT what if wrong?
Modern Just War View
-Unjust warriors permitted to kill just warriors - soldiers have little say in war
-Independence Thesis - jus in bello and jus ad bellum separate SO allies can commit war crimes
-Symmetry Thesis - jus in bello same for both sides
(egalitarian jus in bello)
Discrimination: can’t attack non-combatants knowingly
Proportionality - can’t disproportionately harm non-combatants
Other side of jus in bello
- Is it ever permissible to kill non-combatants/ innocent
- Two possible arguments
1. Intentional harm: wrong
2. Unintentional harm - but foreseen - okay - We still struggle with these problems
Moral Innocence and Immunity
- Vitoria ‘it is never lawful in itself to kill innocent persons’
- Are all combatants innocent & immune?
- Natural to not want to kill innocent people
- BUT might sometimes bear greater responsibility than combatants
Morally discriminating terrorism
- Osama Bin Laden letter to US 2002
- Claim US civilians not innocent - participate in democracy
- Endorse war making governments
- Paying taxes: pays for weapons
- Backing what America does - non-combatants become military targets
- BUT many citizens voted against particular causes SO cannot all bear responsibility
Immunity Violation
3 types of immunity violation
1. Indiscriminate warfare - blanket violence
Not caring if civilians or not
2. Targetted Attack - deliberate - acting terror
3. Disproportionate/ unnecessary collateral harms
Atom bombs in Japan?
But to stop ongoing war - ends justify means
Doctrine of Double Effect
-Distinguishes intended and foreseeable harming
-Attack permissible if:
Intended end permissible
Intended means permissible
Evil effects not intended
Proportionality of side effects
Necessity of side effects
-Single act with 2 effects - one intended, other foreseen - cannot be blamed for what did not intend!
Problems with DDE
- Can’t be justified if know it will harm innocent people
- Philosophical - identifying means and what is intended
- Effectiveness of DDE depends on being able to distinguish between what is and what is not intended as means
Traditional Account of Just War Theory
- Soldiers right to fight and kill enemies in war
- Either unsure of justice of countries cause OR confident it is wrong - but as a soldier still justified to fight and kill
- Unjust warrior permitted to fight and kill without moral worries
- Discrimination
- Proportionality
2 key thesis of traditional account
-Independence Thesis: jus in bello separate from jus ad bellum
SO can fight just war unjustly - based on conduct
-Only jus in bello apples to warriors
-Political leaders responsible for justice of war (cause)
-Symmetry Thesis: same rules, rights, duties, liabilities apply equally to soldiers - regardless of side
-Both sides same constraints - proportionality, not killing innocent people
-Both sides same ‘war privilege’ - to kill each other
Invisible Ignorance
- One side truly just, other side subjectively just
- Unjust side reasonably believe fighting for just cause
- Soldiers no means to make sound moral judgements about jus ad bellum (deferred to superiors)
Obligation to Obey
- Not desirable for soldiers to refuse war based on private moral conscience
- If don’t obey = sedition = mortal sin (Aquinas)
- Difficult if can’t rely on military obedience
Discrimination
- can’t attack non-combatants, can attack combatants
- BUT impossibility of strict discriminate warfare - modern weapons = non-combatants harmed
- Foresee but not intend non-combatant casualties
- Reducing length of war, reduce no. of citizens killed
Proportionality
- no disproportionate attacks to non-combatants
- Even if good intentions, if deemed disproportionate or indiscriminate, if causes high level of collateral damage disproportionate to aims it is illegal
- If action isn’t necessary collateral killings not justified
- Never lawful to kill innocent people, even unintentionally EXCEPT when advances a just war which cannot otherwise be won!
