4. Evaluate the meaning and significance of jus ad bellum (declaration of war) and jus in bello (conduct in war) in the Just War Theory (30)
4 Evaluate the opinion that no war can ever be justified. (30)
4 Evaluate the claim that there are never good reasons to go to war. (30)
4 Evaluate the weaknesses of the claim that the Just War theory is a more realistic approach to the problems raised by going to war. (30)
4 Evaluate the claim 'War should not be allowed even as a last resort'. (30)
4 Evaluate the view that killing in war is more justifiable then other types of killing’ (30)
4. Evaluate the claim ‘War is morally unjustifiable.’ (30)
4 Evaluate the relative importance of ethical and religious pacifism. (30)
4 Evaluate the view that given the special issues arising from nuclear war pacifism is the only ethical option. (30)
4. Evaluate the reasons why pacifism may be a persuasive position that Just war. (30)
4 Evaluate the view that Pacifism is impossible on a global scale. (30)
4 Evaluate the claim that 'religious beliefs be only be used to justify pacifism.’ (30)
4 Evaluate the claim laim that a pacifist can never accept the principles of Just War. . (30)
4 Evaluate the status of the claim the view that despite the strength of pacifist arguments, war can sometimes be justified. (30)
4 Evaluate the extent is pacifism is a more diffcult position to hold than just war. (30)
4 Evaluate the debate between different ideas about absolute, relative/selective and nuclear pacifism. (30)
The religious pacifist George fox said ‘We utterly deny all outward wars & strife & fighting with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever’. The weakness of such religious and absolute pacifism is that we do not live in a world based on pacifism. Virtue Ethicist Anscombe argues, ‘pacifism is wrong because it denies the right to self-defense, and the state has a duty to protect its citizens’. While some Christians are pacifists other Christians will believe in and follow ‘an eye for an eye’ and believe in the authority of the state (Romans). Specifically pacifism is rejected by Christians holding a position known as ‘Christian Realism’. In his book ‘Moral Man and Immoral Society’ (1932), a protestant Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr argued that because human nature was evil, human communities have to use force to maintain a just and ordered society. Realists argue that a war that that the usual moral rules that restrict individual actions don’t apply to societies or communities. Whatever serves the national interest is morally acceptable so Christian realists will fight if they believe a cause is just.
However the strengths of Absolute Pacifism is that it is more clear cut that ‘Christian realism and Just war theory as it opposed all forms of violence and promotes the absolute value of human life. Both Christian realism and Just war Theory are ambiguous at best or worse offer simplistic justifications that lead to tragic events. Jeff McMahan (1991) argues that wars are caused by complex reasons, and that its unrealistic to try to see the act of waging war in terms of a single ‘just’ cause he also notes the outcome of wars are difficult to calculate’ The theologian WALTER WINK considers that Augustine’s teaching of the Just War theory led Christians on the wrong path. He believes that there can never be just reasons for war. Wink argues that justice is brought about by equality and fairness, something which war can never achieve, so a just war is a contradiction in terms. Moreover, it is the weakness of Niebuhr’s Christian Realist response to examples of nuclear war that shows ambiguity of thinking. It is the hard cases such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the terror bombing of Dresdent that pacifists argue shows the reductio ad absurdum of what Anscombe calls Niebuhr’s “dirty hands realism”. Absolute pacifists would argue Just war theory nor realism does not help us explain what is happening in the Middle East. Such Realism does not help when it’s not clear what a legitimate authority is in the morass of modern emerging conflicts where minority communities are engaged in active insurgent conflict against oppressive majorities as in the Middle East. While absolute pacifists would of a clear critical appraisal of such actions perhaps the clarity of the thinking of relative or contingent pacifism is better. A non-sovereign people (the Palestinians) have been engaged in armed struggle since the foundation of Israel and their territorial displacement in 1949 into refugee camps. According to just war theory, and realism their struggle is illegitimate because they are not a sovereign people and because they are pursuing it by means, such as suicide bombings. Yet to a Palestinian there are ample moral grounds for their struggle, and the failure by the west adequately to acknowledge this may well have condemned the Middle East to decades of violence.
The further problem with Absolute Pacifism is it would allow evil gain dominate, for dictators and tyrants such as Hitler to commit heinous and terrible evil. While men and women of peace are remembered and admired such as Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi so are those who compromised and adjusted their beliefs. A case in point is Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) who preached the message of pacifism and joined in non-violent protests against Hitler. Until he began to realise that Hitler wasn’t going to listen and began to revise his Christian beliefs about pacifism. He joined a group to end Nazism and took part in the plot to assassinate Hitler in 1944. Bonhoeffer developed a contingent pacifist belief that violence is evil, but there are worse evils and the only way to deal with them is through violence. He said that the ‘greater evil’ could not be defeated by pacifism. He and other ‘traitors’ were hanged on 9 April 1945 for their contingent pacifist acts of violence.
It is the strength of pacifism that Nuclear weapons also make Just war theory unworkable – the threat of them does not prevent war; it still goes on. Nuclear weapons did not exist, physically or conceptually at the time of Augustine/Aquinas so the theory cannot account fully for them in a way that pacifism can. In a nuclear age, therefore, the only possibility for a Christian may be to revert to pacifism rather than risk the escalation of a war which originally appeared to be containable. It might be argues such absolute pacifism would give in to any dictator who gains a nuclear weapon and here perhaps Nuclear or selective pacifism might be argued for as in the case of North Korea.
Further the problem with pacifism is that Christians may wish to promote peace by fighting, such as overthrowing a dictator. Jesus said: ‘Love thy neighbour’ and ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’. Is it loving to see an individual or group being attacked and do nothing? Is fighting sometimes not establishing peace? We are told: ‘Greater love has no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’ [John 15:13]. Is fighting in war not doing exactly this? Jesus never said anything about fighting wars, yet he had to die a violent death to save people. In Mark 11 Jesus drove the traders out of the temple. Whilst nobody was hurt, Jesus was in conflict with the authorities in a violent outburst. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus actually say that war is wrong. Jesus had a Zealot as a disciple. These people were freedom fighters against the Romans and used violence. Does this not show Jesus condoned such actions? Realists and Just war theories would also quote the prophet Joel who claims ‘prepare for war, beat your pruning hooks into spears your plough shares into swords’. Moreover it’s far from clear that pacifisms is essential to other world religions like Buddhism. According to Harvey and Keown the Buddha who said ‘be ye lamps unto yourselves’ gave ‘relativist’ Virtue ethical teaching meaning war is not wrong or right. In it practice or rejection does someone become more generous,(Dana) patient (Khanti), loving (metta) or compassionate (Karuna). Moreover some sutras seem to be interpreted as permitting war on certain grounds. Mahayana thinkers reflecting the the argue it could be Upaya Kushula or ethically skillful to practice war on the battlefield if the intention was pure.
However Pacifists argue pacifism is essential to the major religions- The Buddha required his followers to renounce violence, Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and turn the other check, and ordered Peter to drop his sword. Indeed for the first 300 years the church renounced war in favor of pacifism and since the reformation many Christians have stood against violence including Mennonites, Moravians, the society of friends and The church of the Brethren. It is a strength of Religious pacifism that it in pure fashion to follows the teachings of Jesus and the historical position of early Christians, which pacifists may see as ignored by the Just War Theory and more latterly by realists. If we apply the Golden Rule we have to ask if we would like to be shot or gassed, if we would like to see our parents bombed, or our children burned to death. Christians can use various Biblical verses to show that violence is never acceptable, such as: “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 10:13). Peace is a feature of the Kingdom of God, and God wants all people to live in peace and justice. The Old Testament is full of the message that God wants to see a world full of peace and justice. The Old Testament prophets often see the future Kingdom of God as a kingdom of peace. “ Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it” . (Psalm 34:14) The Prophet Isaiah said that the Messiah would bring peace and justice to the world. Isaiah calls him “The Prince of Peace”: “And he will be called a Wonderful Counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end.” (Isaiah 9:6-7) However, this a future hope not present ethic. Micah looked forward to a time when God’s rule is established. God’s kingdom will be one of peace. “They will beat their swords into plough shares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Micah 4:3)
In conclusion it is the strength of pacifism that war and violence is obviously inhumane, impractical, immoral, unjust and wasteful. Pacifists argue that the money spent on making weapons and wars could feed the poor and starving people of the world. However, makes the same error of Utilitarianism of overconfidence in assuming a future knowledge we cannot have. It assumes the alternative would not be more wasteful of capitulating to dictators as Just War Theorists and Realists would argue. In contrast Richard Norman Dialogue (1998) Moral restraint in war questions both Just war Theory and Christian realism asking whether our right to defend ourselves with force necessarily transfers to our right to defend sovereignty. He asks is the defense of a culture or way of life that important? After all, it may not be a matter of life and death. Is the defense of a culture or a way of life sufficient to justify the use of violence which results in the loss life’s intrinsically infused with the sanctity of life? Pacifism does seem to follow Jesus example as he didn’t resist capture, suffered torture, death and yet still forgave those who executed Him stating: ‘Forgive them father, they know not what they do”. (Luke 23:34) but Jesus did tell Peter to ‘sell his sword and buy a cloak’ so it’s not completely clear he an absolute pacifist. Given the weakness of absolute pacifism, realism and Just war theory I think it best to adopt as Bonhoeffer did some form of contingent pacifism until we reach the ‘Summon bonnum’ where ‘the lion will lie down with the Lamb’ and the ‘Prince of Peace’ will rule the ‘peaceable kingdom’. To quote Anglican John Stott ‘…the quest for peace is much more costly than appeasement. We admire the loyalty, self-sacrifice and courage of serving soldiers. Yet we must not glamorise or glorify war itself… in some circumstances it may be defended as the lesser of two evils, but it could never be regarded by the Christian mind as more than a painful necessity in a fallen world.’