Kant’s just war theory

Kant’s just war theory NATALIE BRISIGHELLA

St. Thomas aquinas The Summa Theologica, Part II, Question 40, Article 1

War is always sinful • Objection1. Punishment is inflicted only for sin and should be waged only by God • Matt 26:52 “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” • Objection 2. War is contrary to Divine Precepts • Objection 3: War is contrary to peace

A just War is Justifiable • Reply 1. War is justified when declared and carried out by the right authority, pursuing the purpose of justice • Reply 2. It is sometimes necessary to act for the common good • “For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy.” • Reply 3: Those who war aim for peace • “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace”

Just war principles Aquinas

Proper authority wages war • “The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.” • Not a private individual’s business to declare war, because he can seek for personal gain • Neither is it the business of the individual to summon society • But, the role of society is to care for the whole • “And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil doers.”

Just cause • “Those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.” • A. One that avenges wrongs when a nation must be punished • B. For refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted • C. To restore what has been seized unjustly • QUESTION: DOES THIS PRINCIPLE JUSTIFY WAR AGAINST NATIONS WITH NUMEROUS AND CHRONIC HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS? • FURTHERMORE: WHO HAS THE RIGHT, AS A NATION, OR ORGANIZATION, TO “PUNISH”?

RIGHTFUL INTENTION • “For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention.” • Rightful Intention: Advancement of good and avoidance of evil • “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, and unspecific an relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”

Alex moseley “Just War Theory” from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Building the perfect framework • Intrinsicism • Benefit: • “Certain spheres of life ought never to be targeted in war; for example, hospitals and densely populated suburbs.” • Harm: • “Intrinsicism produces an inflexible model that would restrain warrior’s actions to the targeting of permissible targets only.” • Consequentialism • Benefit: • “There are long-term benefits to having a war convention. For example, by fighting cleanly, both sides can be sure that the war does not escalate, thus reducing the probability of creating an incessant war of counter-revenges.” • Harm: • “If more will be gained from breaking the rules than will be lost, the consequentialist cannot but demur to military necessity.”

A more plausible framework Jus Ad Bellum Jus In Bello • JUSTICE OF WAR • Just Cause • Proper Authority • Right Intention • Chance of Success • Ends are Proportional to Means • LAWS OF WAR • Principle of Discrimination • Principle of Proportionality • Principle of Responsibility

Jus ad bellum Justice of War

Just Cause • Premise: A consensus must be developed in order to • determine what is a “just cause” • Self defense • (May be either preemptive or after the fact) • Assisting others against oppression • Assisting others from an external threat • QUESTION: GIVEN THESE GUIDELINES, IS IT EASY TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN SELF DEFENSE AND SELF INTEREST?

PROPER AUTHORITY • “If a government is just, i.e., it is accountable and does not rule arbitrarily, then giving the officers of the state the right to declare war is reasonable. However, the more removed from a proper and just form of government is, the more reasonable it is that its sovereignty disintegrates.” • Authority then depends upon legitimacy and sovereignty • “The notion of proper authority therefore requires thinking about what is meant by sovereignty, what is meant by the state, and what is meant by the proper relationship between a people and its government.” • QUESTION: IS A WAR WAGED BY THE “PROPER AUTHORITY” FEASIBLE?

RIGHT INTENTION • Right Intention: War waged for the cause of justice • War is NOT just if a national interest overwhelms all other motives • PROBLEM: Constitutes a moral condition absent self interest • TWO SENARIOS • Waging a war for peace • Forced to wage a war for national interests • “The issue of intention raises the concern of practicalities as well as consequences, both of which should be considered before declaring war.” • QUESTION: ARE INTENTIONS OF WAR REALLY OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED?

Reasonable success • “Should one not go to the aid of a people or declare war if • there is no conceivable chance of success?” • Good- Morally speaking valuing preservation • of lives and resources are good things • ALTERNATIVES • Civil disobedience • Forming alliances • Get inspired by a charismatic leader like Churchill

PROPORTIONAL ENDS AND MEANS • “A policy of war requires a goal, and that goal must be • proportional to the other principles of just cause.” • Minimizes destruction • Leads to a better balance of power • Example: Nations A & B

Jus in Bello Laws of War

PRINCIPLE of discrimination • Principle of Discrimination: In war, it is considered immoral to attack indiscriminately since non combatants and innocents are deemed to stand outside of the realms of war. • Combatants may be justifiably killed • Being trained and/or armed is considered a threat • When one steps into a boxing ring to fight, one gives up their rights to not be hit • Those who join or are conscripted come to terms with their possible outcomes and are more accepting and prepared for death than innocents

PRINCIPLE of discrimination (continued) • Innocents & Non combatants • Can justify deaths of innocents if said deaths aren’t intentional • One can’t always distinguish between a combatant and an innocent • Ex: guerilla combatants • Waltzer claims the lack of identification • doesn’t give the right to kill indiscriminately • Response: the nature modern warfare • doesn’t allow the opportunity • QUESTION: CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF DISCRIMINATION WAS THE U.S. JUSTIFIED IN THE ATTACKS ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI?

Just a thought • “At a deeper level, one can consider the role that civilians play in supporting an unjust war; to what extent are they morally culpable, and if they are culpable to some extent, does that mean they may become legitimate targets? This invokes the issue of collective versus individuality responsibility that is in itself a complex topic.”

Principle of Proportionality • Dictates how much and what kind of force is morally permissible in a war • “In fighting a just war in which only military targets are attacked, it is still possible to breach morality by employing disproportionate force against an enemy.” • Demands the war or conflict to end before turning into a massacre

Principle of responsibility • Religious responsibility • 1. Accountability to God for actions • “Those who act according to a divine command, or even God’s laws • as enacted by the state and who put wicked men to death “have by no means • violated the commandment, ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’” • B. Abiding by laws and rules during times of peace and at war • C. Knowing the effects of one’s own actions

Questions & Comments IS NUCLEAR WAR BY THESE STANDARDS JUSTIFIABLE? • DOES THIS PRINCIPLE JUSTIFY WAR AGAINST NATIONS WITH NUMEROUS AND CHRONIC HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS? • FURTHERMORE: WHO HAS THE RIGHT, AS A NATION, OR ORGANIZATION, TO “PUNISH”? GIVEN THESE GUIDELINES, IS IT EASY TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN SELF DEFENSE AND SELF INTEREST? IS A WAR WAGED BY THE “PROPER AUTHORITY” FEASIBLE? • CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF DISCRIMINATION WAS THE U.S. JUSTIFIED IN THE ATTACKS ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI? ARE INTENTIONS OF WAR REALLY OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED?

Kant’s just war theory