How do Just War theories expect to justify the pursuit of some wars? How can we ever conclude that some particular war may be more moral than another? Although there are some differences in the principles used, we can point to five basic ideas which are typical.
These are categorized as jus ad bellum and have to do with whether or not it is just to launch any particular war. There are also two additional criteria which are concerned with the morality of actually waging a war, known as jus in bello, which are covered elsewhere.
Just Cause:
The idea that the presumption against the use of violence and war cannot be overcome without the existence of a just cause is perhaps the most basic and important of the principles underlying the Just War tradition. This can be seen in the fact that everyone who calls for a war always proceeds to explain that this war would be pursued in the name of a just and righteous cause - no one ever actually says “our cause is immoral, but we should do it anyway.â€
The principles of Just Cause and Right Intention are readily confused, but differentiating them is made easier by remembering that the cause of a war encompasses the basic principles behind the conflict. Thus, both “preservation of slavery†and “spread of liberty†are the causes which might be used to justify a conflict - but only the latter would be an example of a Just Cause. Other examples of just causes would include the protection of innocent life, defending human rights, and protecting the ability of future generations to survive. Examples of unjust causes would include personal vendettas, conquest, domination, or genocide.
One of the main problems with this principle is alluded to above: everyone believes that their cause is just, including the people who seem to be pursuing the most unjust causes imaginable. The Nazi regime in Germany can provide many example of causes which most people today would regard as unjust, but which the Nazis themselves believed were quite just. If judging the morality of a war simply comes down to which side of the front lines a person is standing, just how useful is this principle?
Even if we were to resolve that, there would still be examples of causes which are ambiguous and hence not obviously just or unjust. For example, would the cause of replacing a hated government be just (because that government oppresses its own people) or unjust (because it violates many basic principles of international law and invites international anarchy)? What about cases where there are two causes, one just and one unjust? Which is considered dominant?
« What is Just War Theory? | Principle of Right Intention »
No comments:
Post a Comment