The Theory of a Just War - Will It Perish in a Global Economy?

www.cbc.ca...



The moral excuse:

“The most neutral phrase we can use to characterize war is that it’s mass killing for a political purpose," says Brian Orend, author of The Morality of War. "But from that fact, this mass killing can be morally defensible or morally objectionable. If it’s morally objectionable then we call it slaughter or murder.”

The religious angle:

Saint Augustine wanted to reconcile the Christian duty to “love thine enemy” with the reality of living in a violent and “fallen world.” It is in his classic work, City of God, that we see the seeds of Just War Theory.

“The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars,” Saint Augustine wrote.

The philosophical argument:

Hauerwas says the problem is that Just War Theory assumes that we'll act rationally.

“I think the assumptions that Just War reflection makes about human kind assumes that we are open to moral argument in a manner that makes our desires, and particularly the desire for vengeance, subsidiary to rational adjudication," Hauerwas says. "And, of course, that’s a very high view of the human - that we are capable of that kind of reflection. The empirical evidence certainly tends to favour the presumption that we are more perverse than we are capable of rational reflection.”

My personal take on mankind’s predilection towards war is that it is sourced from ancient tribalism. During the earliest times in our collective history, we have fought over territory and, as we progressed from city states to countries, it has always been about lines around areas of land.

We have taken the same idea of protecting a river and a valley and expanded it to what is now understood as countries.

The ultimate question that we are left with is why we, as a human race, still feel the need to be territorial while globalism has taken firm roots planet-wide.

As the economic engines of all countries are becoming more and more interdependent, do you see a time in our future when the need for war will become nothing but a criminal act?

a reply to: masqua

The empirical evidence certainly tends to favour the presumption that we are more perverse than we are capable of rational reflection.”

Couldn't agree more with this statement.

We are a vile, vicious species...and in wars...the ugly comes out to play.

In an ideal world...I would like to see those that arrange wars and those that govern them, like politicians, generals and such...to go on the front line as a rule of thumb.

Those that initiate...would be the first to feel it's wrath. I know I'm just dreaming. But if I were God...that's the way I would make it work.

As the economic engines of all countries are becoming more and more interdependent, do you see a time in our future when the need for war will become nothing but a criminal act?

Our current system is not stable and it will not hold, when a country starts to decay and see their neighbors are doing good there will be war.

When a big country sees a poor country have the resources they need and are not making good use of them, there will be war (USA invading/destabilizing any oil rich country)

In other words while we are not equals there is going to be wars, it doesn't matter how much interconnected the world is. If some day there is a new world order with one government I'm pretty sure there will be other excuses.

a reply to: Indigent

I was wondering when the spectre of the New World Order would come up.

On the subject of 'decaying countries', I suggest that these unfortunate areas are so because their natural resources are either non-existent or depleted. The people living there will eventually move to areas where a reasonable living is available. An example of this would be Somalia where the traditional economy depended on fishing. The questionable practices of international fishing fleets has completely depleted that resource and the country has devolved into piracy as a new economy.

Piracy, under all international law, is criminal. As the pressure to fight it increases, the general population will eventually emigrate until an equilibrium is reached and a new economic structure is developed (perhaps tourism or a retirement community?).

a reply to: masqua

lets say you and I are the only survivors of a plane crash in a island, i landed near the only coconut tree and its the only sustain source. Would you try to take by force what chance gave me if i refuse to share?

Is it just to go to war if you are just trying to survive? after all i dint do anything to deserve the control of the vital resource, it just happen i was there.

A country is not much different, a claim to land and resources without much justification other than "i was there first"

People cant just migrate to another country, the locals are happy with their resources why should they accept new people to take what is theirs just because the migrants area is depleted now? If they are not careful they will end just like the others hence war.

a reply to: Indigent

There's a word for your scenario; protectionism. This runs counter to everything involved in globalism which, in essence, is the connectivity of global economies.

Protectionism promotes Isolationism, something that hasn't worked since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Migrations have happened throughout our history... sometimes peacefully, sometimes not, but happen they will.

a reply to: masqua

I think you are mistaken about this, i can go everywhere no doubt about it, in not a threat to anyone, im just 1. Italy took many African immigrants to the point they started to be a load and most south European countries now actively do all they cant to prevent African immigrants arriving in mass, US does the same with south Americans, Japan does the same with the rest of the world, you aint even the same as a local to most middle east rich countries no matter how much you got.

No land accept massive immigration, even in Africa they are just put in camps waiting to send them back as soon as they can. If you want to argue America was made by immigrants or something like that, it is important to remember locals where crushed first and them the immigration was gradual.

In the current globalized world name one country that accept massive immigration

a reply to: Indigent

On immigration, name one spot on earth where people from an area has not, over the centuries, moved into another... the Sahara?

You're focussed on the immediate rather than the overall. All you need do is look at the Americas to see how migrations happen over time. There's always resistance, but it's like King Canute ordering the tides to stop.

How many Japanese live on North America's west coast? How many Africans and South/Central Americans live in America? How many Irish, Dutch, Scots and other Europeans have made that move? How often do we hear about waves of 'boat people' constantly making attempts to cross seas to escape into more promising areas and can the authorities forever be successful in holding them at bay?

The answer lies in improving the conditions in those places of origin while accepting a workable number of immigrants into better areas. It's about balancing economies.

A country that accepts massive immigration is Canada... so much so that it has taken huge steps toward temporary worker programs, allowing hundreds of thousands to come here yearly to earn a living wage to take back to their home countries. It's a helpful program but today also fraught with problems due to a lingering unemployment issue from the move to globalism and worsened by the economic downturn of 2008.

But these issues are fleeting when talking about decades and centuries.

The question remains; does globalization pose a threat to the idea of 'Just War' as outlined in the OP?

originally posted by: masqua
The ultimate question that we are left with is why we, as a human race, still feel the need to be territorial while globalism has taken firm roots planet-wide.

I've been asking myself the same question for eons. Thanks for putting it out there!

a reply to: masqua

Most likely.
People will still be people.
The greedy will still be greedy.
And as long as it's easier, for some, to take by force.
They will continue to do so.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Perhaps so... but will it be criminal rather than what we have considered to be 'just'?

Is the 'justification' for war changing?

Another example: Was Russia 'justified' in 'taking' the Crimean Peninsula or can it be considered a crime? There's always going to be reckless, greedy people but are they not criminals for taking by force what they want from those who are weaker?

a reply to: masqua

I do not really know anything about catholic theology, and I would really have to study this particular theory in depth to truly get a handle on it - and I don't have that kind of time at current moment.

However, in my own religion we do have what is called a "just" war, or what is a just "cause" for war. And that is a war of self defense... self defense is actually the only war at the moment that could ever be considered "just".

Going on that theory alone... there has not been very much by way of a just war in my entire lifetime, except for when Iran defended her borders, and a couple other possibles like the Syrian war against the terrorists (multiple al-qaeda etc groups), and right now the Iraqi's fighting the terrorists. (ISIS), Palestine against Israel would be self defense. Iraq fighting US would be self defense, especially since Saddam Hussein originally asked permission and was under the impression we were okay with his war with Kuwait....Now his war with Kuwait would not have been just although Kuwait was breaking some treaties which he considered an act of war, although I disagree with that... should have gone for lots more diplomacy first....Cant think of any others right now...

But all in all... there really haven't been too many I don't think, that are actually exactly self defense. What we did in Afghanistan was more like revenge rather than self defense, so even that would not constitute as being just.

a reply to: OpinionatedB
The initial American invasion of Iraq had many other countries involved, Canada included, in response to the invasion of Kuwait. Perhaps that was a reasonably 'justifiable' war. The second Iraq war, however, can contested as to whether it was a criminal act or a just one.

Muddy waters indeed when nations take up arms. The First World War, when looked at through the lens of historical facts, shows it to have been largely criminal and built the foundations for the Second. Read Margaret McMillan's book 'The War That Ended Peace' to get the skinny on that bit of political stupidity.

Thanks for the considered response to the question in the OP.

a reply to: masqua

Actually I disagree with your opinion of the first Iraq war... Saddam Hussein did in fact ask if he could attack Kuwait because Kuwait was breaking some treaties and he saw that as an act of war on their part, and was told by the US that Arab/Arab wars were not our concern - therefore he saw himself as having a green light. One week later he invaded. Just because other countries involved themselves doesn't change the fact it is an unjustifiable war on everyone's part BUT Iraq's. Now Kuwait on the other hand, was being invaded and had the right to defend herself... but no one else should have involved in that. It was unnecessary.

This is as you said a problem with a globalized world. Only the people being attacked truly have a right to take up arms. Now we have treaties that say 10 countries because they have treaties can go in and decimate an attacking country which takes it outside the realm of anything truly just.

It's like a fist fight in the school yard... you let the two boys fight it out, and simply make sure one of the boys doesn't hurt the other too badly etc.

That should be the same premise with these treaties, people should only go in and help, and ONLY help keep the borders if absolutely necessary if we have a treaty with a country who is being attacked and beginning to loose severely. We don't do that though... we do a whole lot of overkill, and don't let the "boys" fight it out when need be.

And your welcome anytime. I will get the book, hopefully its in my local library and give it a read! Thanks for the recommendation.

a reply to: masqua

Well, it's worth noting that no one ever really thinks they are the bad guy.
Even the worst of us were claiming they were doing "good".
It's a matter of perspective.
Like everything.

Some will always justify violence within certain contexts.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

When faced with an international court that has actual teeth, those politicians who act with criminality will be faced with consequences. Too bad no such court exists as yet... at least not with the powers to bring those politicians and warlords to justice.

But I'm interested in eventualities as a result of growing globalism. A world court is just such an inevitability. In time, it will be demanded by an increasingly connected world. To such judges as might preside, their own perspective according to international law will overrule whatever those charged may think of themselves no matter who or how powerful they think they are.

Think 50 years down the road and consider where we're headed. Today is a blip, a decade brings change, but half a century can alter the world. If we keep on the way we are without killing ourselves off, can you see globalism producing a change in the way wars are justified (if at all)?

a reply to: masqua

Not particularly.
We will find excuses, then it's just a good propaganda campaign away from justification.
Now, with the growth of the internet and more people from different places at least communicating on some small level.
Will be the game changer.
Harder to demonize/dehumanize people that you actually know.

There is no such thing as killing for peace, that's like having sex to be a virgin.

With that said, if people like battles, then let them be boxers, wrestlers, whatever. People are all different and need freedom of expression but at the same time, hurting people who do not want to be a part of violence is an injustice.

a reply to: arpgme

The mere fact people do it proves it does exist.
However wrong headed it may obviously be.
More or less to be expected considering just how much humanity tends to decide that the only way there is going to be peace/whatever is if the rest of the world was like them.
You see it literally everywhere.