Rector’s Reflections
Friday 11th October 2024
Christianity and the Ethics of War
Over the last few days, we have looked at some of the ways Christians might engage with the ethics of war. So far we have looked at some general ethical theories, including approaches based on rules (such as Natural Law), and approaches based on considering the consequences of the actions we take (“Consequentialism”). Today I am going to consider another general theory, which is known as Just War theory.
What is “Just War theory”? It is the idea that in certain circumstances, war is morally right. Note that is based on the assumption that in normal circumstances war is morally wrong, so it is exploring whether there are exceptions to this general rule. It is based on the assumption that war is morally wrong.
This is a pleasant and civilised position to take. However, as a matter of logic, it is perfectly possible to start with the opposite assumption: to start with the assumption that war is generally morally right, and then seek to explore the exceptions to this rule, ie those situations in which war is morally wrong. This form of reasoning might seem morally repellent, but it can be found in some cultures and societies which promote militaristic values, or among some communities who feel that their very survival is at stake. As always, it is important to remember the context in which moral decisions are taken. In 21st century Britain, we are predisposed towards peace, so the moral challenge is to argue for war. But in some other contexts, the opposite is the case: the moral challenge is to argue for peace, in a culture which is predisposed to war.
For present purposes, I will assume that war is considered a moral wrong, and so Just War theory is all about trying to find those exceptional circumstances in which war might be justified. There is no agreed set of criteria by which a “Just War” might be distinguished from an “Unjust War”, but the following considerations might well be taken into account. Is the war in question a defensive war, which is undertaken as a response to unjust aggression? Is there a realistic chance of success to justify the destruction and loss of life? If the war is indeed successful, will the human suffering and financial cost be proportionate to the benefit of victory? Will unarmed civilians be protected from military attack? Will the military force used be limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve the legitimate aims of the campaign? For example, no Just War should seek the deliberate destruction of a country, a people or a civilisation.
Given criteria such as these, it can easily be seen why there is so much debate over whether it is possible to categorize any conflict in the modern era as a “Just War”. For example, a country might start a war by inflicting a pre-emptive strike, on the grounds that they are worried about what the other country might be about to do. Is such a war a “defensive” war within the traditions of Just War theory? And how is it possible to assess whether the use of force is or is not “proportionate” in the particular circumstances of the war in question? And what if enemy forces are embedded in civilian communities, and it is practically impossible to avoid what is euphemistically called “collateral damage”? How many civilians have to die or be injured before a “Just War” ceases to be a “Just War”?
And what about those situations in which it is hard to make a valid distinction between a “Civilian” and a “Non-Cilivian”? What if it is a situation of “Total War”, in which the whole resources of one country are pitted against the whole resources of another country, in a ruthless battle for survival? Such a situation of “Total War” arguably existed in Europe during the 2nd World War, at least by 1944, and so in these circumstances the distinction between “Civilian” and “Non-Civilian” carried little moral weight. However. I should add that others would disagree, and would argue that the Civilian/Non-Civilian distinction is always important to make.
So the concept of a “Just War” is hard to apply in practice. This has always been the case, and it has probably got even harder as war has got progressively more destructive down the centuries. And even for those who hang onto the concept of “Just War”, there remains the suspicion that it’s simply yet another way for patriotic and uncritical ethicists to justify the unjustifiable. Human beings are good at justifying the unjustifiable.
And, regardless of the theory, does the concept of a “Just War” make any practical difference in our world today? What do you think?