War and
PeaceD’oh!

The Problem of War
• War presents a major challenge to the morality of the
modern world; in our age of progress and reason, why is it
that the human race is so self-destructive? Can armed
conflict ever be justified?
• From the religious perspective, war is doubly problematic.
World religions have often claimed the moral high ground,
but how can this fit with an acceptance of killing? Thus, we
find much debate within religion in the modern world
concerning the justification (or not) of war.
• Christian approaches to war are particularly varied, with a
spectrum of different attitudes ranging from the enthusiastic
endorsement of ‘holy war’ to outright principled pacifism.
These tensions in Christianity reflect the mixed signals we
find in the Bible, as well as a long history of Christian
involvement in politics and conflicts.
• The question is, is there any one just and reliable ethical
approach to war? Our options include classical just war
theory, Christian realism, and pacifism.

Origins of Just War Theory
• The first approach we’ll consider is just war theory. This is a
practical ethical theory, first developed by the Christian
philosopher Saint Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430 CE).
• The earliest Christians by and large were pacifists. However,
the Roman Empire converted to Christianity under the Emperor
Constantine in the early 4th century, and so it was necessary to
have a Christian army to defend the first Christian empire. The
justification of war thus became a pressing concern.
• Augustine, one of the great ‘Doctors of the Church’, looked
back to the Bible and found quite a mixture of ideas. While a
previous generation of Christians had cautiously sided with the
most peaceful option, Augustine thought that a clear case could
be made for justified Christian warfare.

Many Christians have pointed out that
Jesus seems to condemn all forms of
violence in the New Testament:
“blessed are the peacemakers”, he said
(Matt 5). Jesus did not oppose those
who crucified him.
However, things are a bit different in
the Old Testament, and this might help
Christians to justify war. God
commands a number of wars against
Israel’s enemies. Meanwhile, in Exodus
15 it is said that “the LORD is a
warrior”. This implies that God
sometimes approves of war, particularly
in the case of idolatry and fighting
against foreign gods.

So, Augustine developed what is now
known as just war theory, basing his
arguments upon the belief that God
commanded justified wars in the Bible.
Augustine divided his theory into two
main parts: jus ad bellum – just reasons
for going to war, and jus in bello – just
practice while at war.
Much later, in the 13th century,
Augustine’s ideas were taken up a
developed by the philosopher Thomas
Aquinas. He sought to formalise and
expand upon Augustine’s ideas. Like
Augustine, Aquinas was a major Church
authority and saint (known as ‘Doctor
Angelicus). His ideas were hugely
influential in the Church and in history as
a whole.

Aquinas: jus ad bellum
• Through history, philosophers have developed seven key
criteria for jus ad bellum, for going to war. If the criteria are
met, the war is justified. Aquinas, building on Augustine, gives
the first three of these:
1) Just Authority – The war must be ordered by a
competent and legitimate authority (king, pope).
2) Just Cause – There must be a just reason for going
to war in the first place, (e.g. self defence.)
3) Just Intention – The war must be intended to
achieve some good outcome (e.g. lasting peace).

Suarez and di Vittoria: jus ad bellum
• During the war ravaged era of the Reformation, the theory
grew in significance as a justification for the new bloodshed
and was further modified. The philosophers Francisco Suarez
and Francisco de Vitoria (16th cent.) added another three
criteria for jus ad bellum:
1) Proportionality – the injustice which led to the war
must be proportionate to the damage it causes.
2) Last resort – all peaceful alternatives must first
have been attempted.
3) Reasonable chance of success – a war can only
be just if it can succeed. Hopeless wars are immoral.

Finally, the Catholic bishops of the United States later (1983)
decided that jus ad bellum should receive one extra
criterion, in their statement The Promise of Peace:
7) Comparative justice – the interests of both sides
must be taken into consideration.
Wars are rarely just, because
they are usually one-sided.
Governments seldom think of
their enemies when waging
war.
The Catholic Bishops: jus ad
bellum

Applying jus ad bellum criteria
• Now that we have examined all of the criteria
for jus ad bellum, let’s see how this might apply
to a conflict from history. You may wish to make
this sort of application (briefly!) in the exam.
• The conflict which we will look at is the Allies’
war against Germany in World War II. This is
usually regarded as ‘just’ by most Britons and
Americans, so it is worthwhile considering
whether it fits with the criteria.

Despite my rude gestures, I (Winston Churchill)
should probably be regarded as just authority.
Britain was a parliamentary democracy, and I
governed with the consent of its people.
In 1939, the German army made an
unprovoked attack on Poland. Britain
and France wanted to protect their ally,
which was unfairly treated. Arguably,
this gave them just cause.
Throughout the war, I (Adolf Hitler) led
Germany with my fascist and racist National
Socialist Worker’s Party (Nazis). The Allies
wanted to remove me from power, which
suggests that they had a just intention.

The war started quite badly for the Allies
and they were desperate for success.
They would try anything to get an
advantage, including the bombing of large
civilian areas such as Dresden. This
makes it questionable as to whether they
fought with proportionality.
Britain did everything it could to
avoid war with Germany,
including intensive negotiations
between Hitler and Neville
Chamberlain. So, it is fair to say
that war was a last resort.
To begin with, the Germans
were successful, having
greatly superior military
technology. So, the Allies
were unsure as to whether
they would win. Still, they
had a reasonable chance
of success.

Today, Germany is a successful and
peaceful democracy. Arguably, this has
directly resulted from the Allied victory in
the war. Since the German people have
benefited from the destruction of the Nazi
party, one could claim that comparative
justice was served.
Overall, it seems that a fairly good case can be made
for the Allies fighting a ‘just war’ in World War II. They
had the right authority, cause and intention. The war
was a last resort and, although it was quite risky, the
Allies still had a fair chance of success. The strength
of modern Germany also suggests that comparative
justice was served. However, even this war has a real
problem in terms of the criteria: was it really
proportionate? Thousands of German civilians lost
their lives, often unnecessarily.

Jus in bello: Just Practice in War
• Another aspect of just war theory is what is known as jus in
bello – during the war itself, just practices must be maintained.
• This concept goes back to the medieval Church, which tried to
regulate the way in which Christian nations fought each other,
trying to promote codes of conduct such as chivalry.
• The key ideas of jus in bello include discrimination (only killing
or capturing active participants) and proportionality (only using
measures which are fitting and humane).
Certain types of behaviour and virtues are
expected during war: courage, loyalty,
fairness, etc. Of course, these apply to
Christians; there would be no rules to
protect Muslims during Crusades.

Modern approaches to jus in bello
• The modern world has seen a number of
attempts to implement the ideal of a just and
fairly fought war, particularly in international
agreements (early 20th century):
Hague Conventions – a set of agreements
designed to regulate military conduct, banning
cruel weapons such as “bullets which expand or
flatten easily in the human body”.
Geneva Conventions – these aim to protect
prisoners of war, outlawing torture and other
cruel forms of treatment.

Strengths of Just War Theory
• It fits with commonly accepted views of justice,
allowing wars to defend, protect or prevent a
humanitarian disaster. The concept of a just
war is popular and has historical precedent
(World War II).
• It is realistic; it recognises the need for force
and tries to make it as fair as possible.
• It provides important checks on a state’s use of
force. It outlaws war except in defence of others
or upholding important values.

Criticisms/Weaknesses
• It contradicts the teachings of Jesus, who
brings a message of peace in the Gospels.
• Aquinas contradicts himself; in his Natural
Moral Law he claims that life is sacred and
must be preserved. Yet, he allows killing in
warfare. How can this make sense?
• The attempt to justify war actually encourages
war; it suggests that war can be positive.
• The criteria are open to interpretation and can
be manipulated for evil purposes. For example,
in 1939 Germany faked a series of ‘Polish
attacks’ to give them just cause for invading.

Pacifism
• Generally speaking, this is the view that violence is wrong in
any circumstance. People can be pacifists for religious,
philosophical or practical reasons. Pacifism is often
advocated where just war theory is held to be inadequate.
• Historically, many Christians have been pacifists, looking
back to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus lived
non-violently and brought a non-violent redemption (against
some messianic expectations). The very first Christians
refused to join the Roman army.
• Following the Reformation (16th century), a number of pacifist
Protestant sects emerged: Quakers, Mennonites, Brethren,
etc. These groups remain powerful advocates for peace
today.

“Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also.” (Matthew 5).
“They that take the sword shall perish with the
sword.” (Matthew 26).
“We totally oppose all wars,
all preparation for war, all use
of weapons and coercion by
force, and all military
alliances.”
(Quaker Peace Testimony)
Religious, Christian
Pacifism

Principle Pacifism
• Or, ‘philosophical pacifism’, this is a deontological,
absolutist view: violence is always intrinsically wrong. It
assumes that people have real moral duties and must
always seek to preserve life. Opposition to warfare is thus
a consequence of other, abstract ideas.
• This approach can be supported through a sanctity of life
argument. If killing is intrinsically wrong on an individual
level (i.e. murder) then it must also be on a national or
societal level (i.e. war). The whole point of an absolutist
principle is that there are no exceptions, and so, argues
philosopher Richard Reagan, to say that war is an
acceptable form of killing entails a contradiction.

Other Pacifisms
• Relative Pacifism – this is the view that peaceful
solutions should always be the first choice, but without
having an absolute objection to war. Wars might
sometimes (very rarely) be allowed. Nationally
orchestrated violence is always an evil, even if it is the
lesser of two evils.
• Pragmatic Pacifism – the view that peaceful
approaches to conflict should be taken because they
work better. Pragmatic pacifists can point to the
success of non-violent protest campaigns in bringing
about political change (e.g. Martin Luther King’s
peaceful march on Washington was highly effective).

Criticisms of Pacifism
• We can reject the underlying principles:
perhaps life is not intrinsically valuable.
Utilitarians might say that it is sometimes right
to kill, to protect others. It is the greater good.
• Pacifism is unrealistic; wars will happen. The
most we can hope is that wars will be just.
• Violence is sometimes necessary to defeat
great evil, as with the destruction of Nazi
Germany. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr
argued for Realism – the view that violence can
be used to restrain the actions of evil people.

Having once been a Pacifist, Reinhold
Niebuhr changed his mind after he
witnessed the evil perpetrated by
Germany in the Second World War.
He adopted ‘Theological Christian
Realism’ – the view that the collective
character of all humans contains a natural
disposition to do evil. In his book Moral
Man and Immoral Society, Niebuhr wrote:
“Evil is not to be traced back to the
individual, but to the collective behaviour
of humanity.”
For Niebuhr, this meant that lawful and
legitimate governments would need to
use violence to restrain the evil
tendencies of some human beings. The
Allies needed to defeat the evil of Nazi
Germany.
OtherChristian
Realism

Final things to think about…
• In the AO2 (evaluation) component of the
exam, you might be expected to have an
opinion on these issues:
Which is generally superior: Just War Theory
or Pacifism?
Are certain forms of Pacifism compatible with
Just War Theory?
Generally, can war be justified?
Is warfare compatible with religion?