The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 27, 2017 11:30:36 GMT
Do you think there can ever be a just war? Throughout most of the last 700 years, Thomas Aquinas' concept of the just war and its refinement by later Thomists has dominated in the west. The Thomist view is in order for a war to be just, it must conform to Jus Ad Bellum (ie just reasons for going to war) and Jus In Bello (ie just conduct during war).
To conform to Jus Ad Bellum, the following criteria must be met: 1. War must be declared publicly by the proper legal authority 2. War must be fought for the right intentions (eg to re-establish a just peace) and not for material gain, glory etc 3. There is a fair probability of success that the intentions under Criterion 2 will be achieved 4. The risk of collateral damage is proportional to the good that will be achieved by the war 5. That it is the last resort and all other avenues have been exhausted.
To conform to Jus In Bello, the following criteria must be met: 1. There should be distinction made between combatants and non-combatants with only the former considered legitimate targets 2. Collateral damage must be avoided as much as possible unless doing so would cause more harm 3. Any actions taken in war must be deemed necessary for achieving victory 4. Prisoners of war must be treated fairly 5. No warfare methods that are cruel such as torture, mass rape, uncontrollable weapons etc
What do people think? Are the measure above too prescriptive? Are they too lax? Is the whole concept of a just war a nonsense? Can Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello really be separated (an example that often gets thrown about in these discussions is Erwin Rommel, a German military commander in WW2 who seems to have largely conformed to Jus In Bello though his cause certainly did not conform to Jus Ad Bellum)? Has war moved on from Aquinas' time? Can a just war be fought for unjust reasons?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 27, 2017 13:10:29 GMT
Do you think there can ever be a just war? Throughout most of the last 700 years, Thomas Aquinas' concept of the just war and its refinement by later Thomists has dominated in the west. The Thomist view is in order for a war to be just, it must conform to Jus Ad Bellum (ie just reasons for going to war) and Jus In Bello (ie just conduct during war).
To conform to Jus Ad Bellum, the following criteria must be met: 1. War must be declared publicly by the proper legal authority 2. War must be fought for the right intentions (eg to re-establish a just peace) and not for material gain, glory etc 3. There is a fair probability of success that the intentions under Criterion 2 will be achieved 4. The risk of collateral damage is proportional to the good that will be achieved by the war 5. That it is the last resort and all other avenues have been exhausted.
To conform to Jus In Bello, the following criteria must be met: 1. There should be distinction made between combatants and non-combatants with only the former considered legitimate targets 2. Collateral damage must be avoided as much as possible unless doing so would cause more harm 3. Any actions taken in war must be deemed necessary for achieving victory 4. Prisoners of war must be treated fairly 5. No warfare methods that are cruel such as torture, mass rape, uncontrollable weapons etc
What do people think? Are the measure above too prescriptive? Are they too lax? Is the whole concept of a just war a nonsense? Can Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello really be separated (an example that often gets thrown about in these discussions is Erwin Rommel, a German military commander in WW2 who seems to have largely conformed to Jus In Bello though his cause certainly did not conform to Jus Ad Bellum)? Has war moved on from Aquinas' time? Can a just war be fought for unjust reasons?
I'd disagree with 1 and 5 of Jus ad Bellum. There have been lots of illegal wars or violent resistance (French resistance for example) and 5 seems naive. I'd also disagree with 1 and 5 of Jus in Bello. What about civilian spys? Would they be considered combatants? I also wouldn't have a problem with torturing enemies with useful information. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 27, 2017 16:00:56 GMT
I'd disagree with 1 and 5 of Jus ad Bellum. There have been lots of illegal wars or violent resistance (French resistance for example) I think 1 can be salvaged by taking a Rousseauian stance on a legitimate authority - ie that's it's not the person or government that happens to be in power but the potential government that best reflects the general will of the people. Why so? Obviously it doesn't entail letting yourselves be massacred, tortured or enslaved before you fight back but I think the recommendation to explore other avenues before declaring war generally a good one. Yes there are grey cases in this one - spies, people working in munitions factories, farmers feeding troops etc 5 is a more general prohibition of evil acts - though torture is generally considered such an act I suppose not everyone would agree. But I suppose one could come up with vague circumstances where mass rape or dropping nukes serves a greater good. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 27, 2017 19:01:03 GMT
There are no just wars. But I accept that they aren't going away any time soon, so if a Jus Ad Bellum, or Geneva Convention or what-have-you encourages good manners then I guess that's a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 27, 2017 19:31:59 GMT
Do you think there can ever be a just war? Throughout most of the last 700 years, Thomas Aquinas' concept of the just war and its refinement by later Thomists has dominated in the west. The Thomist view is in order for a war to be just, it must conform to Jus Ad Bellum (ie just reasons for going to war) and Jus In Bello (ie just conduct during war).
To conform to Jus Ad Bellum, the following criteria must be met: 1. War must be declared publicly by the proper legal authority 2. War must be fought for the right intentions (eg to re-establish a just peace) and not for material gain, glory etc 3. There is a fair probability of success that the intentions under Criterion 2 will be achieved 4. The risk of collateral damage is proportional to the good that will be achieved by the war 5. That it is the last resort and all other avenues have been exhausted.
To conform to Jus In Bello, the following criteria must be met: 1. There should be distinction made between combatants and non-combatants with only the former considered legitimate targets 2. Collateral damage must be avoided as much as possible unless doing so would cause more harm 3. Any actions taken in war must be deemed necessary for achieving victory 4. Prisoners of war must be treated fairly 5. No warfare methods that are cruel such as torture, mass rape, uncontrollable weapons etc
What do people think? Are the measure above too prescriptive? Are they too lax? Is the whole concept of a just war a nonsense? Can Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello really be separated (an example that often gets thrown about in these discussions is Erwin Rommel, a German military commander in WW2 who seems to have largely conformed to Jus In Bello though his cause certainly did not conform to Jus Ad Bellum)? Has war moved on from Aquinas' time? Can a just war be fought for unjust reasons?
I think the easiest answer is WW2 for the Allies, it conforms to a just war, at least in the 5 reasons for starting it, I think the conduct reasons are a little odd. A nation can be seen to follow the 5 rules, but the chances of all the individuals in the war following them are slim. Even during WW2 the allied nations could be seen as breaking the rules for a just conduct of war. On a more personal note, I taught my step-daughter and will teach my daughter various fighting techniques, but one thing I always said was when we fight we dont go for eyes, throat groin, we don't scratch etc, but in a real fight (not a playground fight, a real one) you go for the eyes, throat, groin and you scratch, bite etc. On an interesting side note during the time of judicial combat, masters would avoid grappling as it was considered to lack skill and therefore not be a proof. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 27, 2017 20:22:17 GMT
I'd disagree with 1 and 5 of Jus ad Bellum. There have been lots of illegal wars or violent resistance (French resistance for example) I think 1 can be salvaged by taking a Rousseauian stance on a legitimate authority - ie that's it's not the person or government that happens to be in power but the potential government that best reflects the general will of the people. Why so? Obviously it doesn't entail letting yourselves be massacred, tortured or enslaved before you fight back but I think the recommendation to explore other avenues before declaring war generally a good one. Yes there are grey cases in this one - spies, people working in munitions factories, farmers feeding troops etc 5 is a more general prohibition of evil acts - though torture is generally considered such an act I suppose not everyone would agree. But I suppose one could come up with vague circumstances where mass rape or dropping nukes serves a greater good. Re Rousseau: well there can be certain cases were seemingly justified revolutions might not be justified if we are to believe that. Would a German resistance not have been justified because Hitler was very popular? Re exhausting other options: If you hard to choose between the options which would you pick 1) A global socialist revolution were capitalism is abolished for good but 3 million are killed 2) Try and have a peaceful transition from global capitalism to global socialism but it will take 100 years and there is no guarantee it will even happen. Sometimes the best strategic decision is not the prettiest. An example of this in "real life" is the campaign by the New IRA, Continuity IRA etc. Now whether you agree with their viewpoint (I dont btw) is irrelevant. They say that there is no chance of persuading a majority to agree to a united Ireland. They believe armed struggle is the only realistic way to bring an end to British rule. Assuming British rule is bad and what they say about achieving a united Ireland peacefully is correct then I think armed struggle would be justified. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 27, 2017 21:29:31 GMT
Re Rousseau: well there can be certain cases were seemingly justified revolutions might not be justified if we are to believe that. Would a German resistance not have been justified because Hitler was very popular? Well the Rousseauian general will isn't the same as a majority rule. It's what all citizens would agree to if they had maximum knowledge and logic so it wouldn't endorse scapegoating certain citizens etc. Rousseau himself is a bit vague about how we work out what's in accord with the general will. Personally I think the concept combines quite well with Rawls' veil of ignorance. Did the IRA make the right call though? Maybe non-violent means would have worked. Maybe British rule could have been made more bearable. Maybe even had their campaign succeeded (which it didn't), a united Ireland would not have been good enough to offset the violence that brought it about. I imagine a Thomist would consider it better to try to find a diplomatic solution and fail then try violence and succeed. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 27, 2017 21:46:32 GMT
Re Rousseau: well there can be certain cases were seemingly justified revolutions might not be justified if we are to believe that. Would a German resistance not have been justified because Hitler was very popular? Well the Rousseauian general will isn't the same as a majority rule. It's what all citizens would agree to if they had maximum knowledge and logic so it wouldn't endorse scapegoating certain citizens etc. Rousseau himself is a bit vague about how we work out what's in accord with the general will. Personally I think the concept combines quite well with Rawls' veil of ignorance. Did the IRA make the right call though? Maybe non-violent means would have worked. Maybe British rule could have been made more bearable. Maybe even had their campaign succeeded (which it didn't), a united Ireland would not have been good enough to offset the violence that brought it about. I imagine a Thomist would consider it better to try to find a diplomatic solution and fail then try violence and succeed. Re Rousseau: fair enough Re IRA: Well I was talking about Dissident republicans not Pre-GFA republicans. But anyway what about if the INLA had been in the position the IRA had been in and they had won, would all the violence be justified? The INLA was marxist and their Ireland would have been much better then the Provos' Ireland.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 27, 2017 21:53:56 GMT
I think the easiest answer is WW2 for the Allies, it conforms to a just war, at least in the 5 reasons for starting it, I think the conduct reasons are a little odd. A nation can be seen to follow the 5 rules, but the chances of all the individuals in the war following them are slim. Even during WW2 the allied nations could be seen as breaking the rules for a just conduct of war WW2 is often cited as the textbook just war. The allies score pretty well as regards Jus ad Bellum - there were of course some cynical reasons for the Allies' actions and some of the good results such as stopping the Holocaust were not really big motivators, but I think it would be reaching to say the allies were wrong in wanting to stop German aggression. With Jus in Bello, it's a bit less clear cut. Even if we allow for not being able to control all individual soldiers, some of the tactical decisions don't seem very just - the British bombing of Dresden, the Russian sacking of Berlin and the American nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the most obvious examples. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 27, 2017 21:54:10 GMT
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 27, 2017 22:00:49 GMT
Well the Rousseauian general will isn't the same as a majority rule. It's what all citizens would agree to if they had maximum knowledge and logic so it wouldn't endorse scapegoating certain citizens etc. Rousseau himself is a bit vague about how we work out what's in accord with the general will. Personally I think the concept combines quite well with Rawls' veil of ignorance. Did the IRA make the right call though? Maybe non-violent means would have worked. Maybe British rule could have been made more bearable. Maybe even had their campaign succeeded (which it didn't), a united Ireland would not have been good enough to offset the violence that brought it about. I imagine a Thomist would consider it better to try to find a diplomatic solution and fail then try violence and succeed. Re Rousseau: fair enough Re IRA: Well I was talking about Dissident republicans not Pre-GFA republicans. But anyway what about if the INLA had been in the position the IRA had been in and they had won, would all the violence be justified? The INLA was marxist and their Ireland would have been much better then the Provos' Ireland.
But don't forget that one consideration in Jus ad Bellum is that the goal is realistic. How realistic was it that the INLA's activities could have brought about a socialist Ireland? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 27, 2017 22:06:59 GMT
Re Rousseau: fair enough Re IRA: Well I was talking about Dissident republicans not Pre-GFA republicans. But anyway what about if the INLA had been in the position the IRA had been in and they had won, would all the violence be justified? The INLA was marxist and their Ireland would have been much better then the Provos' Ireland.
But don't forget that one consideration in Jus ad Bellum is that the goal is realistic. How realistic was it that the INLA's activities could have brought about a socialist Ireland? Unlikely but it was worth it. How often do you get an opportunity to end imperialism and capitalism at the same time? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 27, 2017 22:56:53 GMT
I think the easiest answer is WW2 for the Allies, it conforms to a just war, at least in the 5 reasons for starting it, I think the conduct reasons are a little odd. A nation can be seen to follow the 5 rules, but the chances of all the individuals in the war following them are slim. Even during WW2 the allied nations could be seen as breaking the rules for a just conduct of war WW2 is often cited as the textbook just war. The allies score pretty well as regards Jus ad Bellum - there were of course some cynical reasons for the Allies' actions and some of the good results such as stopping the Holocaust were not really big motivators, but I think it would be reaching to say the allies were wrong in wanting to stop German aggression. With Jus in Bello, it's a bit less clear cut. Even if we allow for not being able to control all individual soldiers, some of the tactical decisions don't seem very just - the British bombing of Dresden, the Russian sacking of Berlin and the American nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being the most obvious examples. Hiroshima and Nagasaki you can argue saved lives, or at least the governments approving of them thought so, but certainly I agree not all the allied nations followed Jus in Bello, mostly mine did I think  but at the end of the day war can be just as defined by those criteria, I wonder though if it is ever worth it being just, meaning surely once you are killing other human beings, you might as well do it any way you can. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 28, 2017 9:16:24 GMT
Hiroshima and Nagasaki you can argue saved lives, or at least the governments approving of them thought so That's the general argument though I don't think it really stands up that well (Japan had already made overtures for a conditional surrender to both the USA and USSR). Even if it were true though, it could be argued that saving lives does not justify such measures as nuking non-combatants. Hmm I don't think I agree. Better to kill someone by a bullet to the head than to subject them to agony. Although avoiding any killing would be the best option if possible. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 28, 2017 18:22:39 GMT
I think conditional is a bit of an issue, by that stage the Allies (in particular USA) were extremely unlikely to accept a conditional surrender, but yeah it is a bt more complex than just that Japan would continue to fight to the last man woman and child.
Yes you could argue that killing non-combatants is worse than soldiers dying, but you could equally argue that 10 000 deaths is better than 15 000 regardless of the circumstances.
There is also the argument of lives saved by proving to the Soviet Union that a war at the time with USA would be a bad idea, I accept we can only speculate, but there were certainly underlying hostilities at the end of the war between the big three.
Accepting that avoiding killing is the best option, and yeah avoiding causing people agony is good, I guess I was thinking a little about the Geneva convention, like it's ok to kill people one way, but not another, at the end of the day dead is dead and in a fight for your life (talking on a personal level) you do whatever it takes to not be the person who dies, morality be damned.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Aug 2, 2017 10:20:19 GMT
I'd also disagree with 1 and 5 of Jus in Bello. What about civilian spys? Would they be considered combatants? I also wouldn't have a problem with torturing enemies with useful information. Well if you take a lesson from WW2, the most successful information extraction from POW's was by the British, who treated their prisoners very well, got them relaxed and let them talk freely among themselves.... with every word being recorded by British agents who sat behind the wall. On the other side of the war, the most successful German interrogator was Hanns-Joachim Schraff, dubbed "The Master" by his peers. Schraff correctly realized that only a bare fraction of captured enemies would have information of immediate tactical use. And it is highly unlikely that one could extract that information in time to use it. So torturing an enemy to get the “whole story” would be a waste of time. Additionally it would run the risk of getting false information from the prisoner. Instead, he did everything in his power to help the captives feel relaxed and safe. He would have long talks with the captives and discuss philosophy or some other seemingly safe topic for a prisoner to discuss. All the while, he was collecting bits and pieces of information that he would assemble and use to support the German war effort. Their best interrogator, and he never had to raise his voice. Don't get me wrong. The Nazis did torture people, boy did they ever! But not this guy, and he was the one who really got results. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Aug 3, 2017 5:05:31 GMT
Re Rousseau: well there can be certain cases were seemingly justified revolutions might not be justified if we are to believe that. Would a German resistance not have been justified because Hitler was very popular? Well the Rousseauian general will isn't the same as a majority rule. It's what all citizens would agree to if they had maximum knowledge and logic so it wouldn't endorse scapegoating certain citizens etc. Rousseau himself is a bit vague about how we work out what's in accord with the general will. Personally I think the concept combines quite well with Rawls' veil of ignorance. Did the IRA make the right call though? Maybe non-violent means would have worked. Maybe British rule could have been made more bearable. Maybe even had their campaign succeeded (which it didn't), a united Ireland would not have been good enough to offset the violence that brought it about. I imagine a Thomist would consider it better to try to find a diplomatic solution and fail then try violence and succeed. Do you mean the start of the Troubles in 1969? Arguably violence did work then. The Catholics attained freedom from political and social repression (eventually) and the IRA gave up violence in favour of the promise of a more free political system that might permit them the possibility of one day attaining a united Ireland. The previous posters Real IRA of course disagree. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,665
Likes: 1,288
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 3, 2017 10:16:24 GMT
Do you mean the start of the Troubles in 1969? Arguably violence did work then. The Catholics attained freedom from political and social repression (eventually) and the IRA gave up violence in favour of the promise of a more free political system that might permit them the possibility of one day attaining a united Ireland. The previous posters Real IRA of course disagree. Hmm very arguably. One could say that the violence hindered any progress rather than helped it as it caused the loyalists and British to dig their heels in rather that try to accommodate. And the gains for the Catholic community perhaps owed more to the likes of Mo Mowlam, John Hume and David Trimble than the IRA. Though who knows, maybe the violence was a necessary motivator - it's hard to speculate on what-ifs. At any rate, the IRA officially gave up violence in 2005 yet are still pretty far from a united Ireland (in fact, a return to direct rule is looking very likely at present) so they certainly didn't realise their main goal. |
|
