For Christians can there be a just war

1
For Christians can there be a just war?
2
Overview

• A variety of Christian reactions to war.
• Some, initially, following Jesus precept those
  who live by the sword will die by sword were
  opposed to the use of force.
• Evidence that there were Christians in the Roman
  legions.
• Eventually, a Just War theory developed to
  justify the use of force.
• But, some Christians pacifists - insist that
  war is never or rarely a Christian option.
• Christians also have a concept of peace that goes
  beyond simply the point when conflict ends.

3
The Questions War raises

• Whether?
• When?
• How to fight?

4
Principal answers

• Just War
• Realism
• Pacifism.

5
Just War theory

• Just War theory is probably the most influential
  of the three main approaches and can be
  considered under three headings
• When it is just to fight a war (jus ad bellum)
• How to behave in war (jus in bello)
• What to do after a war (jus post bellum)

6
When to fight Jus ad bellum

• Just cause human rights abused, another country
  is amassing arms with the intention of attacking
  your state
• Right intention never from revenge, always to
  right an obvious wrong
• Lawful authority governments (especially
  elected ones) have the authority to fight other
  states terrorists do not
• Last resort other methods, especially
  diplomacy, must have failed before force is used
• Realistic chance of success since was is the
  lesser of two evils and is, therefore, intended
  to cause less harm than doing nothing, a nation
  should not go to war if it is likely to fail as
  this would lead to more rather than less
  suffering
• Proportionality there has to be a cost benefit
  analysis the gains of war must exceed their
  likely cost in human life this is very difficult
  to assess

7
How to fight Jus in bello

• How to behave in war
• Discrimination force should be used against the
  military not civilians
• Proportionality only enough force should be
  used tactical use of chemical or biological
  weapons is ruled out (as, even more so, are
  nuclear weapons)
• Weapons bad in themselves mass rape, ethnic
  cleansing, torture, biological and chemical
  weapons (as they have incalculable therefore,
  disproportionate, effects)

8
What to do after a war Jus post bellum

• What to do after the war. The original
  objectives have to have been met, especially the
  restoration of human rights.
• There are conditions for peace
• Just cause to end war violated human rights can
  now be restored and those responsible tried for
  war crimes (e.g. Milosevic)
• Right intention the victor must not pursue
  revenge
• Discrimination civilians must be treated
  differently from their leaders of those who
  committed atrocities
• Proportionality the defeated must not be
  humiliated

9
Pacifism

• Pacifists prefer peace to war.
• Different kinds of pacifist
• against war in any circumstances absolute
  pacifists
• reject war in most circumstances qualified
  pacifists.

10
The Bible pacifism

• The Bible includes a range of attitudes to war.
• There is support for revenge (an eye for an
  eye) but also the vision of peace, where weapons
  become agricultural tools.
• Jesus provides the supreme example of
  non-violence
• He does not resist arrest.
• He forgives his persecutors as he dies on the
  Cross.

11
Problems with Absolute Pacifism

• Non-violence has been supported by many important
  leaders, e.g. Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
• But, there is no evidence that it works on its
  own.
• Also, ruthless governments like Hitlers would
  simply stamp on peaceful opposition (opponents
  simply disappeared and no report was possible
  because of censorship).

12
Problems with qualified pacifism

• A particular problem with qualified pacifism is
  the assessment of whether a war will be worth
  it. How do you foresee what will happen?
• Rests on the assumption that the death of
  innocent people can be justified (inevitably,
  however well focused the use of force might be,
  some of the dead will not be soldiers).

13
Realism

• Realism. Realists see international affairs as a
  jungle where moral considerations will only
  handicap governments. There are two kinds
• descriptive realism if you observe the
  behaviour of nations, morality does not affect it
  (but critics say that the opinions of individuals
  within a state will ultimately affect its
  leaders conduct)
• prescriptive realism - since the world of
  international affairs is a jungle, they
  prescribe doing the most practical/prudent,
  e.g. only fight in self-defence.