NATALIE BRISIGHELLA
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
The Summa Theologica, Part II,
Question 40, Article 1
WAR IS ALWAYS SINFUL
Objection1. Punishment is inflicted only for sin and should be
waged only by God
Matt 26:52 “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Objection 2. War is contrary to Divine Precepts
Objection 3: War is contrary to peace
A JUST WAR IS JUSTIFIABLE
Reply 1. War is justified when declared and carried out by the
right authority, pursuing the purpose of justice
Reply 2. It is sometimes necessary to act for the common good
“For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be
vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a
guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy.”
Reply 3: Those who war aim for peace
“We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace”
JUST WAR PRINCIPLES
Aquinas
PROPER AUTHORITY WAGES WAR
“The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and
counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.”
A. Not a private individual’s business to declare war, because he
can seek for personal gain
B. Neither is it the business of the individual to summon society
C. But, the role of society is to care for the whole
“And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against
internal disturbances, when they punish evil doers.”
JUST CAUSE
“Those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some
fault.”
A. One that avenges wrongs when a nation must be punished
B. For refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted
C. To restore what has been seized unjustly
QUESTION: DOES THIS PRINCIPLE JUSTIFY WAR AGAINST NATIONS WITH NUMEROUS AND
CHRONIC HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS?
FURTHERMORE: WHO HAS THE RIGHT, AS A NATION, OR ORGANIZATION, TO “PUNISH”?
RIGHTFUL INTENTION
“For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause,
and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention.”
Rightful Intention: Advancement of good and avoidance of evil
“The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, and unspecific an relentless
spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly
condemned in war.”
ALEX MOSELEY
“Just War Theory” from the Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy
BUILDING THE PERFECT
FRAMEWORK
Consequentialism
Intrinsicism
Benefit:
“There are long-term benefits to having
a war convention. For example, by
fighting cleanly, both sides can be sure
that the war does not escalate, thus
reducing the probability of creating an
incessant war of counter-revenges.”
Benefit:
“Certain spheres of life ought never to be
targeted in war; for example, hospitals
and densely populated suburbs.”
Harm:
“If more will be gained from breaking
the rules than will be lost, the
consequentialist cannot but demur to
military necessity.”
Harm:
“Intrinsicism produces an inflexible
model that would restrain warrior’s
actions to the targeting of permissible
targets only.”
A MORE PLAUSIBLE FRAMEWORK
Jus Ad Bellum
Jus In Bello
JUSTICE OF WAR
LAWS OF WAR
1. Just Cause
1. Principle of Discrimination
2. Proper Authority
2. Principle of Proportionality
3. Right Intention
3. Principle of Responsibility
4. Chance of Success
5. Ends are Proportional to Means
JUS AD BELLUM
Justice of War
JUST CAUSE
Premise: A consensus must be developed in order to
determine what is a “just cause”
A. Self defense
(May be either preemptive or after the fact)
A. Assisting others against oppression
B. Assisting others from an external threat
QUESTION: GIVEN THESE GUIDELINES, IS IT EASY TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN
SELF DEFENSE AND SELF INTEREST?
PROPER AUTHORITY
“If a government is just, i.e., it is accountable and does not rule arbitrarily,
then giving the officers of the state the right to declare war is reasonable.
However, the more removed from a proper and just form of government is,
the more reasonable it is that its sovereignty disintegrates.”
Authority then depends upon legitimacy and sovereignty
“The notion of proper authority therefore requires thinking about what
is meant by sovereignty, what is meant by the state, and what is meant by the
proper relationship between a people and its government.”
QUESTION: IS A WAR WAGED BY THE “PROPER AUTHORITY” FEASIBLE?
RIGHT INTENTION
Right Intention: War waged for the cause of justice
 War is NOT just if a national interest overwhelms all other motives
 PROBLEM: Constitutes a moral condition absent self interest
1.
1.
TWO SENARIOS
Waging a war for peace
Forced to wage a war for national interests
“The issue of intention raises the concern of practicalities as well as consequences, both of which
should be considered before declaring war.”
QUESTION: ARE INTENTIONS OF WAR REALLY OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED?
REASONABLE SUCCESS
“Should one not go to the aid of a people or declare war if
there is no conceivable chance of success?”
Good- Morally speaking valuing preservation
of lives and resources are good things
ALTERNATIVES
• Civil disobedience
• Forming alliances
• Get inspired by a charismatic leader like Churchill
PROPORTIONAL ENDS AND
MEANS
“A policy of war requires a goal, and that goal must be
proportional to the other principles of just cause.”
1. Minimizes destruction
2. Leads to a better balance of power
Example: Nations A & B
JUS IN BELLO
Laws of War
PRINCIPLE OF DISCRIMINATION
Principle of Discrimination: In war, it is considered immoral to attack
indiscriminately since non combatants and innocents are deemed to stand
outside of the realms of war.
Combatants may be justifiably killed
a.
b.
Being trained and/or armed is considered a threat
When one steps into a boxing ring to fight, one gives up their rights to not
be hit
c.
Those who join or are conscripted come to terms with their possible
outcomes and are more accepting and prepared for death than innocents
PRINCIPLE OF DISCRIMINATION
(CONTINUED)
Innocents & Non combatants
A. Can justify deaths of innocents if said deaths aren’t intentional
B.
One can’t always distinguish between a combatant and an innocent
Ex: guerilla combatants
•
Waltzer claims the lack of identification
doesn’t give the right to kill indiscriminately
•
Response: the nature modern warfare
doesn’t allow the opportunity
QUESTION: CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF DISCRIMINATION WAS THE U.S. JUSTIFIED IN
THE ATTACKS ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI?
JUST A THOUGHT
“At a deeper level, one can consider the role that civilians play in
supporting an unjust war; to what extent are they morally
culpable, and if they are culpable to some extent, does that mean
they may become legitimate targets? This invokes the issue of
collective versus individuality responsibility that is in itself a
complex topic.”
PRINCIPLE OF
PROPORTIONALITY
Dictates how much and what kind of force is morally permissible in a war
“In fighting a just war in which only military targets are attacked, it is still
possible to breach morality by employing disproportionate force against an
enemy.”
Demands the war or conflict to end before turning into a massacre
PRINCIPLE OF RESPONSIBILITY
A. Religious responsibility
1. Accountability to God for actions
“Those who act according to a divine command, or even God’s laws
as enacted by the state and who put wicked men to death “have by no means
violated the commandment, ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’”
B. Abiding by laws and rules during times of peace and at war
C. Knowing the effects of one’s own actions
Questions & Comments
DOES THIS PRINCIPLE JUSTIFY WAR AGAINST
NATIONS WITH NUMEROUS AND CHRONIC
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS?
FURTHERMORE: WHO HAS THE RIGHT, AS A
NATION, OR ORGANIZATION, TO “PUNISH”?
IS NUCLEAR
WAR BY THESE
STANDARDS
JUSTIFIABLE?
GIVEN THESE GUIDELINES, IS IT EASY
TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN SELF
DEFENSE AND SELF INTEREST?
IS A WAR WAGED BY THE “PROPER
AUTHORITY” FEASIBLE?
ARE INTENTIONS OF WAR REALLY
OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED?
CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE
OF DISCRIMINATION WAS THE
U.S. JUSTIFIED IN THE ATTACKS
ON HIROSHIMA AND
NAGASAKI?