1. Justifying war
THREE BROAD JUSTIFICATIONS:
REALPOLITIK: NEEDS NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION
JUST WAR THEORY: ONLY IF IT CONFORMS TO MORAL JUSTIFICATIONS
PACIFISM: CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED
2. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74)
Italian Dominican monk, theologian, and philosopher
Proposed three conditions for the war to be just:
Declared by someone in authority (legal)
Should have a just cause
The belligerents should have the right intentions (desire for
peace and avoidance of evil)
3. Realpolitik
War and peace are beyond morality and should be determined by
pusuit of national interests
Peace is temporary, but war is perpetual
Innate human aggression and mismatch between unlimited human
apetite and scarce resources
Not warmongers, but believe that it’s ‘better to be hard-headed
than be wrong-headed’ (Appeasement)
Moral relativists rather than ‘amoral’
Have been criticised for their narrow approach to marality and
human ethics
4. Just war theory
Principles of jus ad bellum (just recourse to war)
Last resort or the principle of necessity
Just cause: usually self-defence
Legitimate authority: lawfully constituted govt
Right intention: for peace rather than revenge
Reasonable prospect of success:
Proportionality
Principles of jus in bello (just conduct in war): Discrimintaion, Proportionality, Humanity
(Laws of War)
5. Just war contd....
Stands between Realpolitik and pacifism
Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, etc
2 assumptions: Human nature is mix of good and evil; war can be subjected to
moral constraints
Limitation: Should a war satisfy ALL the conditions of jus ad bellum and jus ad bello
to be called a just war? Is there a hierarchy within those principles? Which is
more/most important? Practical difficulties in applying these principles to real life
situations. Makes sense when both parties share moral and cultural beliefs
Questions for discussion in class: Considering the principles
of jus ad bellum and jus ad bello, do you think that WW2
was a just war? Is the ‘war on terror’ a just war?
7. Controversies.....
What is aggression and who is an aggressor?: Israel attack on Arab states (1967); Israel
attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility (1981); US attack on Iraq (2003)
Can non-military form of aggression (economic sanctions, propaganda to incite
violence) justify the use of violence and force?
The question of proportionality: Gaza war between Israel and Hamas in 2008. Is
proportionality relevant when Hamas publicly declares that it wants to destroy Israel?
Consequentialist vs intrinsicist
Quick activity: Read the following articles and discuss the problems associated with
applying Just War theory in practice.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/rethinking-the-just-war-part-1/?_r=0
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/rethinking-the-just-war-part-2/
8. Pacifism
War and morality are irreconciliable
All war is morally wrong because killing itself is
wrong
Religious roots
Contingent pacifism: longer-term benefits of
non-violence as violence breeds more
violence and hatred in the long run
Legal pacifism: Stressed importance of
international law for peaceful resolutions of
conflicts
Criticisms: cowards; free riders; gives priority to
right to life over others such as liberty and
equality, justice, etc.
