According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Just War Theory, states looking to become involved in a war must first look at the complete picture—from their motivations for entering the war, to their conduct during the proposed war, & to the lasting results of the war after its end. The article also asserts that a truly “just” war exists only when a state acts solely in the interest of self-preservation against an aggressor, so that its own people can continue to live & maintain their rights. For this reason, the offensive side of any given war shouldn’t be considered just, because the aggressor state in this case has violated its duty to respect the legitimacy of the state it attacked.
However, this leads to the question of whether a state is right to act pre-emptively against a soon-to-be aggressor, & whether this in turn makes the first state the actual aggressor. I think that the only ethical thing for the defensive state to do in this case is to wait to act until the other state formally engages in warfare. While this may potentially give the aggressor state the upper hand, this course of action should result in fewer wars in the long run. Certainly it's far preferable to have a cold war, where neither state ever takes action against the other, than it is to rush into a war without fully thinking through the motivations and results for doing so. As a Catholic, I still struggle with whether we can ever justify the killing of another human being in the name of any cause, no matter how important—but, as today’s readings point out, there are wars that significantly more just than others because of their principles and conduct.
Kat Hermanson
The International groups that control armed combat give their own set of rules that explain what they constitute as a just war, known as the “Just War Theory” (Stanford). It is broken down into three parts: “jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice resorting to war in the first place, jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun, and jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war” (Stanford). Within each part of the “Just War Theory,” there are multiple subcategories that place strict regulations on the international community that theoretically give every aspect of war as justified reasoning and actions as it possibly can (Stanford).
While the international community agrees on these set of laws to insure justice during modern war time, the church feels differently. Cardinal Ratzinger’s Q&A on the Abridged Version of Catechism shows Christians that while the Catholic Church does not impose their “positions as a doctrine of the Church,” they do make a clear statement on modern-day wars: they are unjust to mankind (Ratzinger). With advances in modern warfare, the Church feels that any type of modern-day warfare, such as the weaponry used in “the war against Iraq,” is simply “unjust” and goes far beyond what normal troops possibilities while engaging in war (Ratzinger). The church, therefore, urges the international to think all types of war and ask ourselves if any type of war can be justified.
-Jay Garrick
Christians and the Just War Theory
The Fifth Commandment of the Ten Commandments simply states “Thou shall not kill”. However, even in Christianity, there are exceptions to this. The Just War Theory is the system used in determining whether or not one group should go to war with another. Despite the fact that war is allowed if necessary by the Catholic Church, they still strongly disapprove of war. They believe (as stated in the Just War Theory) that all other options should be tried first. This includes having meetings involving negotiation etc. If all else fails however war is permissible by the church. Aside from the technicalities of the Just War Theory, the question is “Should Christians engage in warfare?” Most people with a strong understanding of the church and its morals would have to say that Christians should not engage in warfare but I strongly disagree with this. If you do not engage in war when it is needed, you are just allowing more and more evil to happen because you don’t want to engage in these evil actions yourself. Many people also argue that it is not right to go to war unless an action is committed against you first. From the reading “Vitoria said you must wait, since it would be absurd to “punish someone for an offense they have yet to commit.”” However this may sound correct, I do not agree with this under certain circumstances. If there are clear indications or threats from an enemy, then I strongly believe in going at them first to prevent evil from happening to those in your nation. You are better off being safe than sorry.
Nicholas Darin
Christians should- under specific circumstances- engage in warfare. Although it would seem as though this may not be something that a religious person would engage in, the “Just War Theory” discussed by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy details the situations in which I believe it should be allowed. I believe that under certain circumstances, such as those mentioned in the “Just War Theory” (Rwanda, Darfur, etc.), all persons attempting to think justly would have to agree with engaging in war. As we discussed with the Holocaust, those reviewing the situation are proud of those who stood up and did something harmful to the enemies (including those involved in plots to assassinate Hitler) than those who simply stuck with their faith instead of getting involved in the warfare. Thinking about it in this way and under the guidelines presented by the “Just War Theory,” it makes sense that there are times at which it would be acceptable for Christians to engage in warfare for the good and safety of others. The text states the conditions of a just war, for example, when it states, “Terrorists can commit aggression too. There's nothing to the concept which excludes this: they, too, can deploy armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights. When they do so, they forfeit any right not to suffer the consequences of receiving defensive force in response.” Warfare is a common occurrence throughout history; because it is not going away, I believe that the best Christian response to it is to be sure that it is engaged in in a way that follows such guidelines presented rather than not fighting back for the sake of justice.
ReplyDelete-Tori McAllister
War is a topic that can go either way. It is hard to justify war but it is also hard to justify not going to war. People make decisions and some of those decisions will be a bad and good. Making the decision to go to War is something that is not thought of over night. This fact in itself makes War, normally just. No one wants to go to War. But you have to do it for your country and for the people in your country. The "Just War Theory" illustrates the different scenarios in which a Christian should go and not go to War. I think that Christians should go to War if they think it is the right thing to do.
ReplyDelete-Lindsey Ritter
War is never justified unless it is pursued for the right intentions and a good cause. Christians therefore could engage in warfare if it was done for the better of their people or any other morally good/just cause. The "Just War Theory" presents ideas of how warfare should not idealy be the first option upon any circumstance but rather the last resort. Once every peaceful or non-violent method has taken action and has proven to be ineffective, then war may be an option. However, despite the reasons or circumstances, war must be conducted with right intentions. The decisions behind the warfare must also be held with the proper authroities and all consequences and further impacts of the war must be measured and taken into account. These are all factors that if Christians were to engage in warfare, must be obeyed.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Smedley
Christians shoul only engage in war when it is done for the correct circumstances. There are many times when war is committed for the wrong reasons, and in these cases, it is not right for Christians to participate in war. Only when war is the only means of creating a better and more just world, and all things have been done to attempt to negociate, then war is acceptable. Actions made during war also must be done in a Christian way. Leaders and soldiers must follow fair and moral treatment of enemies in war. Even though killing of others is inevitable in war, it must be done only as much as necessary. When these rules are followed, then Christians are justified in engaging in wars.
ReplyDeleteI believe in “Just Warfare” and what is considered criteria of just warfare.. In the Standford Encyclopedia reading, the author mentions the foundation of Just Warfare as: just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probable success, and proportionality. I believe that Christians should not have a strict opinion on whether they should engage in warfare or not. I feel that everyone, including Christians, should decided whether to engage in warfare on a case to case basis and not completely side with one opinion or the other. Even though I believe that no one should choose one side or the other without understand each case of warfare, I do believe that before choosing to engage in warfare there should be attempts at a peaceful resolution. Christians are called to live life as Christ had. Jesus Christ lived a life where he would help everyone and spread the word of peace and acceptance. As Christians, we too should try to resolve issues and conflicts with acceptance and respect for others. If a peaceful resolution cannot be accomplished or if a party will not agree to act peacefully, then I believe that it is sometimes necessary to engage in warfare especially if it is defense or in protection of innocent being.
ReplyDelete- Nicole Dillon
I found Stanford's definition of aggression to be really interesting. To me, it really summed up nicely what is a just cause for entering war. It was also the measuring point for me among all the different conditions; they could all be simplified to the question of whether a someone or a group of people had had their rights violated through an act of force.
ReplyDeleteI also really found it interesting that when the interview was conducted with Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II didn't consider America's war on terror a just war.
-Sophia Pileggi
It seems that one’s immediate reaction to the concept of non-violence is usually positive. Yet if a consideration is made for the stakes involved in not acting, non-violence has the potential to be even more detrimental than engaging in just war. All criteria that must be met in order for a war to be just are “quite demanding, as of course it should be, given the gravity of its subject matter” (Stanford Encyclopedia). These jus ad bellum principles ensure that the correct intent is present before war is called. Additionally, the only groups which can engage in just war are legitimate ones. This further ensures that the war is being declared for moral reasons. I would ascertain that it is the duty of the Christian to combat utter aggression with effective force. While it should not be done by way of “Realpolitik” (the ends justify the means), we must remember that “an aggressor has no right not to be warred against in defense” (Stanford Encyclopedia).
ReplyDeleteI believe that war should only be seen as a last resort, which the Just War Theory speaks of in the section entitled "Jus ad bellum," as well. War hurts so many lives that it must be determined that the good that would result from the war would be greater than the damage done during the war. This idea of proportionality is also spoken of in the "Jus ad bellum" section of the Just War Theory.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many requirements in order for a war to be considered just, and not one requirement may be compromised. Therefore, it seems that it would be difficult to justify many wars. In the Zenit article Pope John Paul II even goes as far as to say that "today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'" (3).
Stanford Encyclopedia on Just War was an interesting text to read because it focused on the details of why a war should start, how the war should be pursued and then how the war should end. While reading this text I found myself matching many historical events to a certain part and conduct. For example, I found interesting that it would be considered unjust if a government/country were to attack and defend itself against another country before even being attacked... Maybe there was a threat or possibility, but the country has to be attacked first to be able to declare a war. This I found possibly connecting to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor. Another huge argument is that it's considered unjust to use biochemical warfare. This I thought connected well to the Cardinal Ratzinger's text because he mentions that the Catechism needs to be reviewed because although what is in it already stands correct, it may need to be revised to fit our present time and the problems we face today. Like biochemical warfare and figuring out what kinds of weapons would be considered "just" is a discussion that needs to be constantly reviewed and debated with the "question/answer" method because technology as well as everything else continues to advance and develop.
ReplyDelete-Katie Lamb
If we are to call ourselves "Members of the Faithful" or Followers of Christ" I would have to agree with Cardinal Ratzinger on the need for a Catechism. What is essential and fundamental in Catholic faith and morals must clearly be stated so that we as members can knowingly and responsibly make a commitment. Now, more that ever in our society people of faith feel they can pick and choose what they will believe and what practices they will follow. Their decisions about faith are often based on what is convenient or comfortable. Having a clear, abridged catechism will help set the record straight regarding the essential contents of our faith.
ReplyDelete-Carolyn Spero
The Just War Theory emphasizes the necessity of justice in three components of war: motive, means, and cosequences. It is often difficult to determine whether or not a war is, in fact, just. There are often many controversial issues on both sides that call for serious deliberation. Since the standards of JWT are very hard to fully meet, I believe there are most likely very few, if any, totally just wars in our history. There is almost always something that each side does out of selfish motives, rashness, or narrow mindedness towards the future. In a perfect world, there would be no need for war. Sadly, it is unlikely that there will never be an end to war on earth. People always seem to be in conflict with each other. Even if it is not between whole nations, even after these current wars reach their ends, it is possible that war will be everpresent in humanity. If each of us plays our own part to strive for justice and peace, maybe this can be put to a halt.
ReplyDeleteWhile war itself is a regrettable tool to effect justice in the world, it seems necessary at times. However, its large destructive power necessitates that its use be governed by strict ethical, moral, and political principles. It is not surprise that so much ink has been spilled on the matter. It seemed to me that the Stanford version of Just War made sense to me, and included lots of contingencies or exceptions so as not to leave out an important part of the complexities of what could really be considered a "just" war. It seems to me that it can all be summed up as a rectifying of wrongs. As soon as military actions strays an inch over that line, the war becomes unjust. The war must be an intervention that steps in and stops and repairs any sort of wrong that is being done. If any other motivations or methods are brought in the war loses its justice. Cardinal Ratzinger's (and Pope John Paul II's) assessment of the Iraq war seems to be fair as well. When one holds that war up against the criteria put forth for a just war, it becomes clear that several criteria were neglected/glazed over.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a just war and the Just War Theory is a multi-faceted issue which cannot be solved very quickly or simply. One must first realize that war is a violent act against fellow brothers and sisters of the human race. Can this ever be truly justifiable? I believe that it fundamentally cannot be seen as a morally acceptable act, no matter the circumstances. Circumstances do, however, alter the severity of such an inhuman act as war. If a country or its people is attacked first, certainly it is understandable to retaliate in defense. There is a fine line, however, between great tension and outright aggresion between countries. Is it alright to attack a country first is a threat seems imminent? I don't know, and I don't think there will ever be an easy answer to this or any inquiry about war. War can be seen as a fight for freedom, for the people, protection, financial/power gain, and defense. It can also be seen as a product of greed, pride, hatred, and lust. Intrinsically, war can not be separated from these things.
ReplyDeleteAnother question I have yet to find the answer to is if and when is it acceptable to fight against another country for the "protection" of its own people? Time and again we have seen America's weight being shifted around, distributing money, ammunition, and soldiers to other parts of the world, for the reason of aiding other places. Is it right for us as Americans to invade other countries and governments and not allow them to solve their own problems? Or as Christians, and good-hearted Americans, do we have a duty to help our fellow humans who seem oppressed by their own government? Once again, I do not know the answer, yet I continously strive to find a solid conclusion to the very grey topic of the Just War.
-Risa Del Eskew
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia's definition of a "just war" there needs to be three things which constitutes its existence. There needs to be a just cause, just means, and a just solution. I agree with all of these aspects that are laid out to define a "just war" but someone's idea of a just cause, means, or solution may be distorted or different from what is morally a just cause, means, or solution. Discovering if a war is "just" or not depending on these three principles, will work in a morally uncorrupt state but if a state is somewhat corrupt then the state's reasoning is erred and more often than not there are going to be unjust wars being called just. I feel like a nation can twist facts or advocate to a citizen's emotion in order to get support in fighting what the nation says is a just war. Pope John Paul II was against the War in Iraq saying it is not a just war and was fought for the wrong reasons. But to some people, it may still seem to be a just war whether in be corrupt morals or a very close personal involvement.
ReplyDeleteEmma Leary
From how I understand the class readings for this week and from my past knowledge of warfare and Church doctrine on just war, it seems that yes, Christians should engage in warfare when the circumstances call for it. Both my past knowledge of the just war theory and my new knowledge of it coincide on this: that when it is necessary for defense, and the proper conditions are met, a country may engage in war with another country (and thus, individuals may fight in that war).
ReplyDeleteWhat I didn't remember or hadn't learned was that the pope encourages us to look long and hard at the wars of our present day to determine their justice, but it makes sense. Any war is a hugely destructive power with the potential to go very wrong, especially with the weapons at the modern state's disposal. Therefore, it still can be just to go into a war if the circumstances call for it (another WW2, for example), but we must be very careful when making this decision in the modern world, given that life as we know it might, very literally, be at stake.
Chelsey Sterling
I believe that it is possible for Christians to justify war. This text concerning just war does a good job at explaining what criteria is needed for a war to be justified. I believe that Christians can adhere to this belief, especially in regards to the protection of human rights. The main issue discussed in this reading involves the protection of human rights of one's own country, or of another country. It is my opinion that Christians should be able to accept war that is started on the premise of protecting the rights of those being assaulted. In reference to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's text we read, it is man's responsibility, given by God, to respect, protect, and stand up for others. Therefore, I believe that war is justified when the motive is solely to protect human rights.
ReplyDelete-Elisabeth O'Toole
War is something that can be thought upon as a good or bad thing. War itself is not good but the fact that someone it sticking up for what they believe it good. Something that can cause a war can happen over night but the process of a war takes time. The decision making about war is a hard thing to settle. The "Just War Theory" shares different reasons on why a Christian should go and not go to War. Overall I think that Christians should go to War if they think it is the right and will have a positive outcome.
ReplyDelete-mary vogt
-mary
It is hard to ever justify war. The taking of lives is a terrible thing to do; however, there are circumstances that I believe call for war. The Stanford Encyclopedia calls for three conditions that must be met in just war, a just cause, a just means, and a just solution. I believe that certain causes can warrant a just war. I do not believe that there has ever been a just means in war. The tactics during war are rarely just throughout the whole war, and so I believe that there has never been a just war.
ReplyDeleteTom May
War should never be justified because it is the useless throwing away of precious human lives. War can only ever be justified if there is no other opition such as World War II. But that was one war out of hundreds that could possibly be justifed. The major problem with war is that it desenitizes humans about the importance of other human lives through propaganda and continuse killing.
ReplyDelete-Tara Costello
As it has been said before, war appears to be a necessary thing sometimes. We wish that it was not, but as the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, we must defend human life and our way of living. From what I read it does not seem like we have ever carried out a just war. We can start with the intention to do so, but by the time we get to the end there has always been some means that negates the "just" aspect.
ReplyDelete~Nicholas Shields
I believe war is a very complicated situation. Many people have trouble choosing which way to decide when it comes to war: whether to go to war, or not to go to war. The Just War theory shares different insights on Christian beliefs concerning war. However, I believe everyone has their own opinion on war.
ReplyDeleteElise Ariens
It is not always in the wrong for war to be started in the Christian religion. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it is stated that it is not always unjust to engage in warfare. Only under circumstances, though, are we allowed to do so. Our goal is to preserve human life, and if there is something threatening this goal, then one would be able to justify the reasoning of the resulting warfare.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a difficult argument, though, because there seems to be a bit of gray area that is unavoidable.
The Just War Theory highlights several critical parts of war: the motive for going to war, the means by which war is fought, and the consequences of both the individual actions and the war as a whole. I ask whether a war is just is tough; in what circumstances is the killing of fellow human beings just? I feel as if war is justifiable, but not just – almost like a necessary evil at times.
ReplyDeleteThe just war theory, as explained by the Stanford Encyclopedia, can be divided into three parts: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. These three are essentially the criteria for how the “justness” of war can be measured – they look at the justice in resorting to war, the justice of conduct during war, and the justice of the peace agreements and the end of the war (respectively). It is obvious that the evaluation of war is a complex thing, and trying to find the justice in each of these categories is, I feel, almost impossible. But these three focuses led to the establishment of a crucial criteria – jus in bello requires that there be: 1) just cause, 2) right intention, 3) proper authority and public declaration, 4) that war be the last resort, 5) that the state considers the probability of success, and 6) proportionality. There are even more criteria, including the obeying laws of international weapons prohibition, ensuring that soldiers do not harm civilians, not using means that are evil in themselves and fair treatment of POWs.
I don’t know if these criteria necessarily make war “just,” because I am still of the belief that killing people is not just. However, these criteria do provide a moral standing that can help make wars a little MORE just, or a little LESS terrible, so I definitely think that the criteria are valuable. In the end, though, I think we need to look at the justifiableness of a war – since it is never going to reach that perfect goal of “just,” war should still be held to a high standard to make it “as just as possible.”
The Stanford Encyclopedia's systematic approach to evaluating the circumstances that constitute just war seems exhaustive, meaning most wars can be determined to be just or not. The foundations of claims made about just war lie in morality, and that which is bad is that which goes against human's natural rights: freedom, subsistence, basic rights, etc. Since war concerns nations, the issue becomes more complicated. Civilians, those not fighting, are morally exempt to some extent, and oughtn't be killed in war. Herein lies one of the problems Ratzinger has with the Anglo-American War with Iraq. Nowadays, the methods of combat used often result in the death of civilians. Another reason that this war can be viewed as unjust is that there was not sufficient reason to launch such a war. Because of the availability of information and the stringency of the criteria for just war, it's worth asking what would cause aggression in the modern world?
ReplyDeleteI do not believe there is any reason strong enough to justify war. Although there are several good causes for going to war, it is still a very difficult decision. War results in the loss of many human beings. The Stanford Encyclopedia states that we must defend the human life and the way we live this life. There is a strategic plan of how to start a war, carry it out, and end it that makes it just, but it seems like this has never happened. Every one is entitled to their own opinion about war. There is always a lot of controversy over war because so many people do not believe in it, but then there are many people who believe it is essential.
ReplyDelete-Katelyn Bockin
War is a subject that is more controversial than most other topics in all of society. It seems to be that when it comes to war, you are either for it or against it, and hardly ever in between. Society many times forces people to make a decision on where they stand, and most times you must stick with it. The Just War Theory brings out another aspect to the controversiality of War. It highlights the question "Is there a such thing as a Just War?" Many times, I believe, there is cause for war and there is Justice in that cause. Other times, though, wars are started for all the wrong reasons, and people fall victim for these wrong reasons. There are certain ways that wars should be fought as well. The preservation of human life should be the number one, and sole reason for fighting a war.
ReplyDeleteI have conflicting views regarding war being just or not. There never seems to be good, or just, enough reasons to start a war which will, eventually, cause the deaths of innocent people. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, "We should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."" (Cardinal Ratzinger on the Abrdiged Version of Catechism p.3)
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, without war we could allow terrorists to start ruling the country. I mean, who exactly gets to define a 'just cause' to start a war?
~Caitlin Gorecki