Just War Theory and the Religious Influence

The Professor replies: Really good points made. But when you consider the debate, is war ever really justified? Sometimes a good movie can help us to answer this type of question. There is a recent debate that addresses this question and uses the movie Hotel Rwanda as an example to make its point. Check it out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmdf9kZG-2A PLEASE, ANSWER See below my POST: Week 2. The Religious Theorists: Aquinas First, note the formal criteria for “just war” given in the readings this week. What are the advantages and disadvantages of committing to a set of formal criteria for future decisions concerning the use of force? Just war theory was developed in the Middle Ages from Catholic moral theology, St. Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologicae. Modern Just War Theory, as studied today, comes most directly from Aquinas (APUS). It is the most widely accepted concept of just war, as its two parts make up the laws of war as expressed in the Geneva Conventions (Walzer, 1977). “Just war” is made up of two sets of criteria: “Jus Ad Bellum” (Conditions for going to war) is to be consulted before engaging in war, and “Jus In Bello” (How to behave in war) is to be consulted during the war. “Jus Ad Bellum” determines whether or not starting a war is justifiable, and “Jus In Bello” determines whether some force’s tactics in war are justifiable. Overall, Jus Ad Bellum states that war needs to be proclaimed by a legitimate authority, be in self-defense, be a last resort, and have a decent likelihood of success. Just In Bello states that war shall be fought with proportional methods; thus, the damage done should not exceed the good to be acquired. It must be fought with the motivating reason of love for the opposing side, fought with minimal force, and non-combatants are not to be attacked. These two criteria of judgment are independent of each other, and thus, “a just war could be fought unjustly, and an unjust war could be fought in conformity with the rules (Walzer, 1977). Consistency, clarity, and accountability are benefits of committing to a set of written standards for future choices involving the application of force. Decision-makers might more readily decide to what extent force employment is justifiable by having precise standards. It can guarantee that judgments are based on impartial criteria and contribute to avoiding arbitrary or biased decisionmaking. Promoting fairness and avoiding unfair advantage or prejudice charges may also be achieved by establishing consistently enforced standards. The works of St. Augustine illustrate the benefits of adhering to formal principles. With elements of Cicero’s ideas, Augustine found the basis for the just war theory, which offered an outline for determining when using force is ethically acceptable (APUS). His standards encompassed the defense of an innocent person, the advancement of a righteous cause, and the appropriateness of the methods employed. The possible restrictions and uncertainty of interpretation are two examples of the drawbacks of adhering to formal requirements. The “just war theory” standards may be interpreted and used differently by various theologians and religious groups, leading to varying judgments concerning the same circumstance. The instance of the Iraq War serves as an example from Thomas Aquinas on YouTube of how the term “just war theory” has been interpreted. That illustration shows how different understandings of identical facts might result in conflicting conclusions on whether employing armed force is justified (College Binary, 2008). Preemptive arises, for instance, could be acceptable under the standards of self-defense, but unjust aggression, according to others. The usefulness and validity of the requirements may be threatened by such subjectivity’s ability to spark arguments and controversies Second, one consequence of religious influence on ideas concerning warfare is that wars are often viewed as battles between good and evil. How might such a perception affect one side’s adherence to jus in bello rules? Should the relative rightness of one’s cause affect whether the jus in bello rules are followed? (Note: this isn’t an opinion question — be sure to look at the ways that the various writers would answer these questions as well.) The ordering of society for the religious theorists was based on sacred tenets and an understanding of the design of the world by a Supreme Being. In rediscovering the works of Plato and Aristotle, these medieval theorists sought to use the authority of God as the foundation for societal governance (APUS). Christianity with its core principle of nonviolence, as Jesus taught in various parts of the Gospel, “Blessed are the peacemakers” and further told disciples to “love one’s neighbor, love their enemies, love each another, and to turn the other cheek in the face of violence.” The famous rebuke Jesus made to Peter in Gethsemane after the apostle struck a servant with his sword, Jesus said to him: “Put back your sword in its place, for who draw the sword, by sword will be perished” (Matthew 26:52). That command would seem to confirm that the Bible forbids Christians from taking part in any violent action, especially when paired with Christ’s meek acceptance of death at the hands of his enemies (Busek, n. d). These Commands are challenging to follow on the battlefield and seem incompatible with the Christian faith. Henceforth, during the third century, Christians declined to join the Roman army, and guided by pacifist theologians Origen and Tertullian, many Christians chose to win the crown of martyrdom by meekly accepting deaths. That situation led to state persecution of the church because war had been a reality in Rome since the days of the republic. By the fourth century, however, Christianity became a state religion, which changed the relationship between Christianity and the Roman state. However, various theological problems came, including whether Christians should wage war. To reconcile the necessity of war with Christ’s injunctions against violence, philosophical thinkers came to develop the “just war theory,” the conditions under which war can be waged without sin. Although many attempts from at least the first millennium B.C. ideas about the justice of war, as well as customary norms regulating combat, began to be developed by Western societies, Augustine was the first philosopher to write about the just war in the 4th century. About eight hundred years later, Aquinas reinterpreted Augustine’s theology to fit the crusade’s context (Busek, n. d). Traditionally, the just war theory has been divided into two principles: The “Jus In Bello” and the “Jus Ad Bellum.” The Jus In Bello allows scholars to evaluate the morality of the behavior exhibited by the participants in a war and the effects of their behavior. Jus In Bello (How to behave in war): • Proportionality – Force is limited to what is necessary. • Discrimination – Spare innocent lives. • Responsibility – A nation is not responsible for collateral damage if the other criteria are met (Dorbolo, 2001). Reichberg (2010) noted that Aquinas never gave a systematic account of evangelical nonviolence concerning the traditional doctrine of just war inherited from Augustine. apart from his commentary on Matthew 5:39, where, in broad strokes, he theorizes about the scope of the Gospel precept: “Do not resist evil.” Henceforth, it has been necessary to reconstruct his view from various sources, mainly from the “Summa Theologiae.” Although Aquinas did not spell how nonresistance to evil, when carried out by Christ’s disciples, may be efficacious in derivation upon his original redemptive action, he stated, nonetheless, in a parallel passage (II, Q. 64, A. 4, “Whether it is licit for clerics to kill evildoers”) that this priestly nonviolence is in keeping with the economy of the New Law, “wherein no punishment of death or bodily maiming is appointed.” Aquinas believed that obedience to the jus in bello principles should not be affected by the relative righteousness of one’s cause. According to Aquinas, Christians should try to defend moral standards at all costs. He believes war can be justified if carried out reasonably and for a fair purpose, and several unquestionable ethical standards should direct all human behavior, including military operations (College Binary, 2008). As a result, disregarding the principles of jus in bello is not an excuse offered by the idea that war is a conflict between good and evil. Humans have an ethical obligation to follow the rules of physics, act logically, and advance social welfare. It additionally implies that, in times of battle, all sides must behave in a way that preserves the other side’s values and liberties, irrespective of whether one side believes it is fighting for a righteous cause. As a result, the belief that a conflict is a struggle between the forces of good and evil does not excuse one party from adhering to the jus in bello principles. . Reichberg (2010) summarized Aquinas’s main view: “Just war and evangelical nonviolence are each valid in their respective spheres. Both represent ways of dealing with evil, the first by active resistance especially on behalf of the innocent under attack, the second by the voluntary acceptance of harm, assumed out of love for the spiritual good of the attacker.” Reference APUS (n. d). Lecture Note, Week 2. Political Philosophy POLS501. The Religious Theorists: Aquinas. Busek, R. (n. d). “Defenders of the Faith: Augustine, Aquinas, and the Evolution of Medieval Just War Theory,” Saber and Scroll: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 3 https://apus.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=41412745 College Binary, (2008). Three Minute Philosophy: Thomas Aquinas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz_iGGGMddw Dorbolo, J. (2001) “Just War Theory” Oregon State University. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/just_war_theory/criteria_intro.html Gregory, R. M. (n. d). Thomas Aquinas Between Just War and Pacifism. http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph& AN=50639255&site=ehost-live&scope=site Reichberg, G. M. (2010). Thomas Aquinas between Just War and Pacifism. Journal of Religious Ethics, 38(2), 219–241. https://doi-org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1111/j.1467-9795.2010.00427.x Walzer, M. (1977). Just and Unjust Wars Theory. Hoover Institution. https://www.hoover.org/research/michael-walzer-just-and-unjust-wars1977#:~:text=In%20Walzer’s%20view%2C%20individuals%20in,do%20not%20choose%20to% 20fight.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.