Can war be just?
Michael Lacewing
enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk
© Michael Lacewing
‘Realism’
• Relations between states aren’t governed by
justice - so the question of a ‘just war’ is
beside the point
• Descriptive realism: states are simply not
motivated by justice, but by national
interest
• Prescriptive realism: foreign policy should
not be governed by morality/justice, but
national interest
• Why believe realism?
Just war?
• War attacks people’s lives, security,
subsistence, peace and liberty
– These are bad consequences, and form no part of
eudaimonia
– Hence war is condemned by utilitarianism and
Aristotle in most circumstances
– For Kant, the motive will be central
• Three aspects:
– Jus ad bellum – the justice of resorting to war
– Jus in bello – just conduct in war
– Jus post bellum – justice at the end of war
Jus ad bellum
• For deontologists, it is central that war is in
a just cause, and the intention for fighting
the war is because it is in a just cause.
• What is a just cause?
– Kant: self-defence of the state
– Also defence of others from aggression, which
involves the violation of basic rights by use of
armed force
– Aristotle: the only reason to wage war is to
secure peace
Jus ad bellum
• War must be declared by a legitimate state.
– A legitimate state must be recognized as
legitimate by its citizens and by other states;
– it must not violate the rights of other legitimate
states; and
– it must respect the basic rights of its citizens
– Kant: any state that declares war without the
consent of its citizens uses its citizens as a means
to an end
Jus ad bellum
• Utilitarians focus on the consequences, so
– The declaration of war must be a last resort.
– The state can foresee a probability of success in
resolving the conflict through war.
– The response of declaring war must be
proportionate, i.e. the good that can be secured
through war must outweigh the evil that will
most likely occur.
Jus in bello
• Primary focus is on how the enemy is engaged
and treated
• Only combatants may be targeted.
– Deontology: it is wrong to intend the deaths of noncombatants
– Utilitarianism: minimize suffering.
• Armed forces must use proportional force, i.e.
proportional to achieving the end.
Jus in bello
• Other deontological principles (or Mill’s theory
of rights)
– No weapons or means of war that are ‘evil in
themselves’ are permitted.
– Armed forces are not justified in breaking these
rules in response to the enemy breaking these
rules.
Jus post bellum
• The rights whose violation justified the war
should be secured.
• Proportionality governs both jus ad bellum and
jus in bello, and so it should govern the peace
settlement as well. It should be reasonable, not
a form of revenge.
– This is utilitarian. A Kantian might argue that
aggressors must be punished.
• The discrimination between combatants
(including political leaders) and non-combatants
still applies when seeking punishment.
Pacifism
• War is always unjust, and therefore always
wrong.
– Strong: in principle
– Weak: in fact
• Utilitarian: Aggression by a state does not
need to be resisted by war, as there are
other means, e.g. civil disobedience
– But these methods may only work if the aggressor
is responsive to justice
Pacifism
• Deontological: War always involves a
violation of moral duties
– Is it a violation of one’s duty to kill someone if
you are resisting their aggression?
• In practice: No war has met the conditions of
‘just war theory’.