The ideals of a Just War sound great and all, but what are its weaknesses? Some pacifists may stretch the point of “last resort” to extreme measures, but is there ever a time that a war is necessary even if it doesn’t fall in the guidelines of a just war? Or are the pacifist right in that there is always a reasonable alternative measure?
The idea of Just War sounds good to me, but there is still a naggling doubt that makes me think they are somehow flawed. I am not a philosopher so this could just be that it is all new to me. Is a Just War necessary, and does underminning it once set a bad precedence that may unravel centuries of international treaties?
I wanted to ask more, but for some reason I am drawing a blank. I know that wars in history that may not have been “just” in any way, shape, or form have led to desireable ends, but does that mean having an unjust war is ok because history set precedence? In war, can immoral actions lead to moral conclusions?
As a side note, I think this would be a great discussion, but I can see it get derailed rather quickly. I hope that we can have a debate without this thread turning into a political sniper-fest, and not focus on the politics so much as the theory behind this doctrine?
Thanks for the link RTF, since I neglected to think that there may be people on this board that don’t know what Just War is.
I am a bit shocked at the lack of response so far. Do I need to take a hard stance, one side or another, for any debate to occur? Or do people simply not have any opinions on this subject? Or is this subject just not that interesting? (Seems to be to me, and I am not a political guy)
A “Just War” simply depends on the perspective that one adopts in viewing the participants. It is my understanding that the underlying pretext for all wars isan initial quest for the acquisition of scarce resources. As one army moves in and conquers or takes what it needs, the responding army then perceives a “justification” for going to war and takes the moral high ground. Hitler’s Germany needed to rebuild its shattered economy, so moves into the neighboring Ruhr valley and sets things in motion. France and England now have the moral high ground to respond in kind. The Nazis view the subsequent war as “just” from their perspective, and the Allies feel “justified” from their perspective.
Am I making any sense here?
I noticed one of the requirements from that link is “War can only be waged with a reasonable chance of success”.
Why? Aren’t some causes worthy of futile effort. If not so, why do we put effort into our lifes, in the end we are dust anyway. It is the struggle for a worthy aim not the achievement of it that makes the struggle itself worthy.
Yeah, this was one of the things that struck me as odd. I suppose they mean the invading force. Wars waged in self defense might not be considered a reasonable chance of sucess, but I guess this theory advocates surrendering if you know you are going to lose. Perhaps to save lifes? But what about in cases like WWII in which, say Poland knows it cannot lose but to surrender means millions of its citizens dying in camps?
True, but Just war theory tries to prevent bigger states or countries from invading weaker ones just for resources. From RTF’s link:
So much of the wars that may have seem a necessity in the past, because resources were scarce or whatnot, by this theory were unjust. This theory tries to take the “perspective” out of it, and set down a “True” moral guideline. But is this guideline sufficient, or is it flawed? Does a country not have the right to invade a country so that it can save itself, when a neighboring weaker country next door has resources the larger country needs? Even if the neighboring country refuses to sell the larger country said resources? At what point do these guidelines break down?
Oops, I meant to add, if this theory breaks down at one point because of exceptions, is there a possible slippery slope outcome in which the exceptions multiply and are more of an excuse than anything? Does one “exception” set a precedence that causes the whole theory (and the international treaties based off it) to unravel?
I think a war being ‘just’ or ‘unjust’ is all a matter of perspective in the end…BOTH sides think they are both ‘just’ and ‘justifiable’. And its usually the winners perspective that has more weight from a historical perspective. I have serious doubts that many war ever fought was fought with one side thinking they were ‘unjust’ and the other side ‘just’.
The closest I can come off the top of my head is that a large percentage of American citizens felt that our involvement in Vietnam was ‘unjust’…the feeling growing over time. Its still controversial today, with many thinking it was ‘just’ and many thinking the opposite here in the states. I suppose the same could be said over our involvement in Iraq, with a fairly large percentage of American’s feeling our involvement and invasion of Iraq was ‘unjust’…and the same could be said in that case for may of the other allied nations.
But in the past I would wager that both sides felt they were ‘just’ and that their fighthing, reguardless of the side the were on or what provoked the war was ‘justified’.
Uhh, well I’m not so much debating on how people perceive if their war ideology is just, but if the theory of Just War is justifiable. Notice the capitalization and RTF’s link.
The theory is there to codify what makes a war “just” in “abosolute” terms. Whatever that can mean. It is the idea of an absolute morality in the issue, stemming from law in the case of international dealings, rather than the idea of what is just (small j) in a philosophical way. I suppose the two are related, but I thought I would clarify.
There are two halves of Just War theory. Most of the above has been devoted to Jus Ad Bellum - legit reasons to go to war. The other half is Jus in Bello - how you fight it, the kind of stuff the Geneva conventions are to a certain extent modern codifications of. Violations of either one makes a war “unjust.”
Many of the objections above are due to modern perceptions of the relationship between state, citizen, and ethnicity. Dynastic and other interstate fighting has historically (and non-trivially into the modern age) had little to do with the interests of the citizens of the countries (vs. their rulers). Just because a government loudly proclaims victim status or can produce documents alleging wickedness on its opponents does not mean that the truth/reality backs them up.
Just war is not about rationalization or justification, but consideration of morality and balancing the cost in blood and suffering. .
The “only fight winnable fights” is hardly unreasonable (if unrealistic). (Completely leaving aside the hows and whys of the Pacific portion of WWII) it is hard to understand what the people of Japan gained by continuing to fight through 1945. From an ideological point of view or the point of view of the party/individuals in power it might be worth the long shot, but hardly from any objective view of the situation. Did Belgium do right by its citizens in 1914 by refusing the Kaiser permission to traverse their territory?*
Ignoring the fact that the Kaiser’s guarantee of Belgium post-war was likely worthless
I think I understand now what the two posters above mentioned about perspective. Even from a legal standpoint, Just war theory is so vague it could be probably be used in a convulted sense to say the terrorists fight a Just War. Why is the Jus ad Bellum section so vague and lacking in definition?
I would go so far as to say that no war is moral even though it may be necessary. Perhaps I see “moral” in the extreme though. I’m not sure I think any action which kills another could be said to be moral in absolute terms, even though it may be legal or even necessary to continue survival. That is a different discussion though.
My stance on the whole thing is this: Just War theory is important in international relations and continued civilized behavior. I think it is a noble and great thing to have restraint and compassion for ones enemy, and I think it is important to hold to law. Ignoring my advice about politics, I would say that I disagree with what the U.S did in this war in ignoring international protocol. I say this not because I dislike the leaders or anything of the sort, but because I think it sets bad precedence for future conflicts. I don’t think, as a nation, being a bully and saying that because one has power they can do as they like is good precedence at all.
In regards to a discussion with some friends: Is it a bad analogy to compare international dealings with Junior high social situations? Can a war fought on economic interests be any different than a bully stealing lunch money merely for “economic interests?” Can national level actions be held accountable on the same level as on a personal level, in a legal or moral way?