Question for Athiests and/or Agnostics: Just War?

[Anselm_Lughson]

greetings. i have a question for my atheist colleagues.

Preamble
Even before the war in Iraq, there was a lot of discussion over whether or not it would an ethical action. Much of this centered upon the Christian doctrine called the “Just War Theory.” in case you are not familiar with that theory, i’ll post a short appendix to this briefly laying out its points.

Question
my question is:

1. how does the Just War Theory appears to measure up in your opinions?
2. if you find a problem with the JWT, please articulate why there is a problem and your own opinion of how nations should act in time of war.

Disclaimer
i have seen several discussions in which athiests are put to on morals and how they might or might not be possible without a religious tradition or deity. obviously athiests claim they have alternative sources of moral thinking. this question is not challenging that. its an innocent question in that there is no intention to lead or trap or what have you. so please don’t feel like you have to be on the defensive.
i am just curious what may be the feedback and variety of thinking about a specific topic: the morality of war/violence (why and when etc).

finally, i started thinking about this listening to an NPR report on Iraq, and obviously there is a direct application. however, i would enjoy it if we could first talk in the abstract rather than just about this particular conflict.
EDIT: In fact, i’ll strengthen this. PLEASE speak abstractly about principles or ideas applicable to any war now for in the future. There is already a thread going about the Iraqi War itself and there is no need to duplicate the discussion or get into Republican/Democratic politics, so lets only bring in Iraq as an illustration or example.

thank you ahead of time to those who contribute. -Anselm

[Anselm_Lughson]

The Christian Just War Theory Cheat Sheet

culled from an article by Fr William Saunders found at: catholiceducation.org/articl … e0182.html
Read more at:
catholiceducation.org/links/ … submit.y=0
(and where ever else).

The gist of it is:

(1) Just cause — The war must confront an unquestioned danger. "The damage inflicted by the aggressor or the nation or community of nations must b lasting, grave and certain, assets the Catechism (#2309).

(2) Proper authority — The legitimate authority must declare the war and must be acting on behalf of the people.

(3) Right Intention — The reasons for declaring the war must actually be the objectives, not a masking of ulterior motives.

(4) Last resort — All reasonable peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted or have been deemed impractical or ineffective. The contentious parties must strive to resolve their differences peacefully before engaging in war, e.g. through negotiation, mediation, or even embargoes. Here too we see the importance of an international medial body, such as the United Nations.

(5) Proportionality —The good that is achieved by waging war must not be outweighed by the harm. What good is it to wage war if it leaves the country in total devastation with no one really being the winner? Modern means of warfare give great weight to this criterion.

(6) Probability of success — The achievement of the war’s purpose must have a reasonable chance of success.

If a country can meet these criteria, then it may justly enter war. Moreover, a country could come to the assistance of another country who is not able to defend itself as long as these criteria are met.

However, the event of war does not entail that all means of waging war are licit; essentially, the “all is fair in love and war” rule is flawed. During war, the country must also meet criteria to insure justice is preserved.

(1) Discrimination — Armed forces ought to fight armed forces, and should strive not to harm non-combatants purposefully. Moreover, armed forces should not wantonly destroy the enemy’s countryside, cities, or economy simply for the sake of punishment, retaliation or vengeance.

(2) Due proportion — Combatants must use only those means necessary to achieve their objectives. For example, no one needs to use nuclear missiles to settle a territorial fishing problem. Due proportion also involves mercy — towards civilians in general, towards combatants when the resistance stops (as in the case of surrender and prisoners of war), and towards all parties when the war is finished.

While these are “just criteria” — they still are wrenching. It seems paradoxical that the Christian religion which promotes love justifies a violent action to establish justice. No good peon wants war. Yet at times we — as an individual, community, or nation — must confront and stop an evil. Pope John Paul II in an address to a group of soldiers stated, “Peace, as taught by Sacred Scripture and the experience of men itself, is more than just the absence of war. And the Christian is aware that on earth a human society that is completely and always peaceful is unfortunately an utopia and that the ideologies which present it as easily attainable only nourish vain hopes. The cause of peace will not go forward by denying the possibility and the obligation to defend it.”

[aporia]

Hi, I’m an atheist, but was raised Catholic and have a lot of appreciation for Catholic moral theory. Just war theory in particular strikes me as wise and noble. I would rejoice on the day that the politics of war are governed by these principles. But will that day ever come?

[Mad_Man_P]

I’m not sure what it you are looking to debate here…

I’m an athiest and to me “might makes right” is the ultimate moral code… Hell even if i were religion that would be the ultimate source of moral… since God is the almighty and he dictates what is right…

That JWT strikes me as an appeal to already established western morals… tho if we are to discuss if the JWT is something which can be supported in good concience then i would say no… There is no such thing as a “just war” to my knowledge… at least not in any objectie term… cuz whomever your going to war with will definatly not be in agreement… and it becomes what all wars have and always will be… a battle for resourcess, cutlrure and ideas… self-presurvation and expansion… Givin these notions are “just” causes for war… then all wars in the history of mankind have been just… for they were fought to further an ideal… a curlture… or to secure the future of a people…

I would find it offencive if someone were to attempt to convince me that any war was more or less just than another… such self-deception is only usefull to dull the masses and calm them from the horrors of war… allow them to hide behind the illusion that we are somehow not “killers”… but “liberators”… or some such nonsense…

oh well… it is wholly possible that i missed the direction u wished for this thread to take… if so… that would be embarrasing…

[Anselm_Lughson]

no, i’m just interested in soliciting information. thank you for your thoughts.
like i said, i’m basically trying to gather ideas of what a secular ethical codes of violence and war are out there now.
allow me to draw you out a little, Mad Man P, you said:

I’m an athiest and to me “might makes right” is the ultimate moral code…

can there then be no bad violence? or violence you wouldn’t support?
i appears that you would be on the side of the schoolyard bully then, since s/he is mightier than others, s/he is “right.”

does anyone disagree with this? is there no alternative secular view of violence that isn’t “might makes right”?

[Xunzian]

shrugs

Given that religious moral theory is a highly advanced and efficacious form of morality, I see no reason why most atheists wouldn’t more-or-less accept Church moral doctrine on many issues but replace God with something like the categorical imperitive or a utilitarian idea. The Bible, as well as a variety of other moral traditions and, more recently, science itself, all suggest that humans have an innate moral code. Now, all of them also suggest that this innate moral code is incredibly fragile and needs to be carefully cultivated as well. So, aside from radical Nietzscheans, I see no reason why most people wouldn’t accept the JWT.

It is more-or-less the same as the Confucian idea of a Just War as described in the Four Books, as well as that which was more carefully laid out in the Book of History and the Spring and Autumn Annals by example. Though, the Will of the People, particularly those in the invaded country, plays a larger role there.

[phawkins1988]

@Mad Man P

I would find it offencive if someone were to attempt to convince me that any war was more or less just than another… such self-deception is only usefull to dull the masses and calm them from the horrors of war… allow them to hide behind the illusion that we are somehow not “killers”… but “liberators”… or some such nonsense…

Ignoring methods of proportionality (where there is perhaps a legitimate historical case to be made), you would say that the war thought to liberate Europe from Hitler was equally just as Hitler’s war to dominate Europe?

An trite example I know, but your position strikes me as ludicrous.

[Impenitent]

“justice” is determined by the victor.

-Imp

[Anselm_Lughson]

Imp, you wrote:

“justice” is determined by the victor.

does this mean you are sympathetic to Mad Man P’s assertion that “might makes right”? when then is violent war acceptable/advantageous and when is it not?

also, Imp,
do you agree essentially with Xunzian’s opinion that something like JWT ought to be salvaged?

[Impenitent]

@Anselm Lughson

Imp, you wrote:

“justice” is determined by the victor.

does this mean you are sympathetic to Mad Man P’s assertion that “might makes right”?

yep

when then is violent war acceptable/advantageous and when is it not?

whenever it works to your advantage

also, Imp,
do you agree essentially with Xunzian’s opinion that something like JWT ought to be salvaged?

anything can be justified. justification has no value to me.

-Imp

[Anselm_Lughson]

Imp,
for clarification:
what sort of advantage are you speaking of? one can think of “enlightened self-interest” in which advantage is abstracted from present concerns for expected future benefit.
in this case, military invention to stop a genocide might be “advantageous,” do you agree? do you think war should be utilized for those sorts of purposes?

or one can think of advantage as, well, simple raw advantage for here and now.
in this case a war for resources, such a war to take away someone’s oil sources for oneself would be advantageous. do you agree?
(Note: i’m not making any statement about Iraq and the question whether it is for oil.)

[Impenitent]

@Anselm Lughson

Imp,
for clarification:
what sort of advantage are you speaking of? one can think of “enlightened self-interest” in which advantage is abstracted from present concerns for expected future benefit.

whatever advantage the powerful thinks is important at the time

in this case, military invention to stop a genocide might be “advantageous,” do you agree?

could be. but for the sake of stopping the genocide in itself

do you think war should be utilized for those sorts of purposes?

war should be and is waged for any purpose

or one can think of advantage as, well, simple raw advantage for here and now.
in this case a war for resources, such a war to take away someone’s oil sources for oneself would be advantageous. do you agree?

sure

(Note: i’m not making any statement about Iraq and the question whether it is for oil.)

-Imp

[Anselm_Lughson]

well, Imp, i’ve got to hand it to you, you’re consistent.
about different advantageous moves you wrote:

whatever advantage the powerful thinks is important at the time

i’m curious then what criterion or criteria help us know what is advantageous? is there one? if not, how would one know if one is acting advantageously or not?
also, if there is no criterion for what is advantageous for oneself, how could one recognize disadvantageous actions? this would apply to wars, but i suppose this would also apply to personal choices too. for example: we look down upon it, but if there is no criterion distinguishing advantageous from disadvantageous, what is wrong with staying home and masturbating all day?

[Impenitent]

@Anselm Lughson

well, Imp, i’ve got to hand it to you, you’re consistent.
about different advantageous moves you wrote:

whatever advantage the powerful thinks is important at the time

i’m curious then what criterion or criteria help us know what is advantageous? is there one? if not, how would one know if one is acting advantageously or not?

whatever criteria the powerful individual wishes to follow… they may or may not ultimately act in their benefit, that is beside the point. they will act as they are wont to act.

also, if there is no criterion for what is advantageous for oneself, how could one recognize disadvantageous actions?

again, it would have to be judged after the fact.

this would apply to wars, but i suppose this would also apply to personal choices too. for example: we look down upon it, but if there is no criterion distinguishing advantageous from disadvantageous, what is wrong with staying home and masturbating all day?

nothing… I don’t think it pays well but if you can make a living at it, more power to you…

-Imp

[Mad_Man_P]

@Anselm Lughson

can there then be no bad violence? or violence you wouldn’t support?
i appears that you would be on the side of the schoolyard bully then, since s/he is mightier than others, s/he is “right.”

does anyone disagree with this? is there no alternative secular view of violence that isn’t “might makes right”?

Let me first say that I’m assuming that we are talking about an objective “right and wrong” here and not my personal feelings on the matter…

To answer your question… since i don’t believe in a god or any kind of diety that dictates “good” behavior yet allows for “bad”… my view is this… everything that happens is nessisarily “good” (at least in an objective sense)… and based on observation… I have come to the conclusion that where morality is concerned… might makes right… and in this i judge good and bad by the rewards of one’s actions…

The bully who steals the other kids milk money will be rewarded unless a greater force goes against him… say the kids band together against him… or tell a teacher… or simply freez him out of social events (assuming he would care)…

basically… I dont believe that such things as “injustice” or “evil” or “bad” exist in an objective way… they are mearly words to describe behavior that we subjectivly dislike or are disadvantaged by… and therfor wish to eliminate… through a “moral code”…

[shybard]

First, Rousseau showed quite clearly that might does not make right.

Second, there can perhaps be such a thing as a just war (depending on your definition of justice), but it’s very hard to make a moral war.

Most moral theories that are actually moral theories (not Hobbes, for example) will have a great difficulty justifying war. The possible exception is when a given body politic has been invaded and the war is therefore strictly for self-protection.

Iraq, obviously, would not qualify.

And I’m not convinced even this is true. Can you morally defend your own life if it requires you to harm someone else, or end their life in return? I think that’s a far more difficult question than most give credit. People tend to knee-jerk towards this notion, but your intuitions could well be wrong.

That was a bit of an aside.

[Sabrina]

War seems to develop when one party wants to cheat the other party out of something that is rightfully the other party’s, their home, their food, their women, their money … their oil … and they just can’t help themselves.

I can only imagine that the collective conscious of the cheating nation really must experience a dire shortage or an addictive need of the thing they want to cheat the other party out of via war, because to take the very lives of the group and sacrifice them for the object in question, slaughtering the other party’s people in the process, I can’t think of anything more drastic.

I like JWT item #4, especially the part about U.N. intervention.

To me, #4 is the only item that needs to be on the list.

[Mad_Man_P]

@shybard

First, Rousseau showed quite clearly that might does not make right.

Really? I was not aware of this… how so?

[ethereal_sage]

There is a lot of energy created between the interactions of yin and yang (to pick something handy). This energy can be both constructive and destructive. Ignorance of the potential interactions can be devastating to one’s existence, and the Just War Theory is an attempt to justify potential actions or reactions. To any society or person interested in self-preservation, it will be viewed as just. To everyone else, actions will be viewed as just if they are tamed reactions.

[Harry_Haller]

i have no problem with the JWT and even agree with it. However it is all theory to me and not applicable to the real world. Because in the real world, most of the time no one can judge whether or not criteria is fullfilled due to lack of information and the complexities of the variables causing war. How does one define lasting, grave and certain danger? Is one suicide bomber a year enough? 2? 100? How can you determine legitimate authortiy if the one in position of power always determines themselves legitimate? How can one determine if a nation has ulterior motives if the motives are determined by a mass conglomerate of people who all have different motives? how can one decide what information is truth and not propaganda, distortion or outright lies? etc. to the rest.