Theories of Just War - Essay Example

? Theories of Just War Number Number Teacher’s Due Theories of Just War The theories of just war are relevant in today’s society as well. War forms an integral, if undesirable, part of modern society. Every nation has an arsenal stocked with the deadliest of weapons, many of which may be able to wipe off mankind from the very face of the earth. It is widely agreed upon that a nuclear war, if it happens, would produce this result. The threat that stronger nations pose to the sovereignty of smaller nations is also one of the greatest problems that faces mankind at this point of time in history. For the purpose of acquiring resources and also for the age-old purpose of conversions, countries may turn loose aggression on countries that may be unable to defend themselves from such an onslaught. Keeping this in mind, people of this century need to look at the theories that have been recorded in history that regulate the forms of war that states are allowed to wage against any other state or community. The importance of this lies in the fact that it may be able to reduce or eliminate the casualties that occur in today’s world as a result of the wars that have become a regular feature of the political landscape of every continent on the world. It is ironic that even Antarctica is not exempt from being a site of war. The theories of war that exist in contemporary times have to be juxtaposed with those that were proposed by religious thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Any theory of war that needs to stand the test of time needs to fulfil the basic purpose of its establishment- the meting out of justice. In this context, it would be useful to look at the theories of justice that have been a part of human historical records. Prominent among these are the ones of Plato and Aristotle. These two thinkers have had a profound effect upon the theories of justice that have come after them. This paper shall look at the theories that they put forth and attempt to assess their importance in the contemporary debates on theories that seek to define and contextualize the phenomenon of war in relation to justice. Aristotle’s arguments in Book Three of his work, Politics, seek to determine the status of the citizens of a particular state and the powers that that person has. The criteria that the state must follow to decide which person upon which it can confer citizenship and which one it cannot is one that may seem unjust to some at present. These were based on laws that were created during the times of Ancient Greece and they were done when Greece was one of the greatest powers in the earth. To restrict foreigners from entering the land and establishing their rights was one of the main concerns of the state. Aristotle’s arguments need to be seen in this light. When viewed in the light of the democratic societies that present observers are used to, Aristotle’s arguments that have a profound impact on the development of present conceptions of the sovereignty of a state may appear to be unjust to certain sections of the society. Seemingly unjust powers are granted to the state that would enable it to treat its citizens in an arbitrary manner. The state is also shown to be the ultimate reason for the existence of the citizen. This can be seen from the fact that Aristotle considers it to be of more importance for a person t be a good citizen than a good person. The goodness of a person is determined by the utility of his self to the state (Clayton). These theories of citizenship and justice can be extended to understand the powers that Aristotle may have envisaged for the state in relation to other states. The sovereignty of other states too, thus is not important, in the same way that the sovereignty of an individual is unimportant. In this context, all the actions of the state, including an unjust war may be justified and the arbitrary nature of the decisions of the state would ensure that dissent is not a part of the solutions that the citizens of a particular state may envisage. War may thus, according to the spirit of these thoughts, be a solution to the existing problems that a state may have with another state irrespective of the nature of the problems and the alternatives available to the state. The reason as to why many Greek states had to maintain very strong armies can be seen from these arguments. The threat of an unjustified attack was there for many Greek states and they had to remain prepared for it. Plato’s Republic, too, has a conception of the state that is high-handed and arbitrary. One of the greatest philosophers to have ever walked the face of the earth, Plato talks about the analogies that he is able to draw between the state and the human individual who is a part of it. He feels that the state is composed of three parts, people who produce the things that are necessary for the daily needs of the state, people who are needed for war and for maintaining the state of law and order in the state and those that are needed for ruling these classes of people. This classification is a watertight political assessment of the state as far as Plato is concerned and is thus, as arbitrary as the classifications that Aristotle had put forth. He also introduces another dimension to the model that he creates. He introduces an analogy between the state and the individual where the individual himself has three parts. These are the rational, spirited and appetitive parts of the human. The rational part of the human seeks to steer him towards the truth and towards philosophical research that may enable him to reach truth. The spirited part of the individual, on the other hand, makes the human being try to reach for honor and is responsible for the anger that the person feels towards certain individuals or communities. The appetitive part is the one that provokes man to lust after his base desires including a desire for money. The power to rule is provided to the class of rulers who according to Plato must consist of the philosophers of the land. The reasons for justice in such a state are decided arbitrarily by the rulers who are the part of the society which strives for knowledge and wisdom in the same way that an individual’s rational part would strive for the truth. The models for justice that can be seen in Plato’s Republic do not condemn the actions taken by the rulers of a state. They however, do express dissatisfaction at the system of governance that existed then by asking for a new system (Brown). The state’s definitions of justice are thus, not unquestioned and accepted without any form of dissent. Christian theories of just war were proposed by St. Augustine and were later expanded by St. Thomas Aquinas who sought to make the entire process of war more meaningful. He sought to make the process directed towards the creation of peace rather than the destruction of it. He proposed a system where the state would be able to go into war only in certain cases. He laid down strict conditions for the state so that it would not go in for war as an option for the flimsiest of reasons. First of all, he laid it down that it is only the state (by this, he means the monarch of the state since this was the traditional order in the thirteenth century when he proposed these tenets) that has the authority to fight a war. It is only the prince of a particular state who was allowed to make aggressive advances towards another country. Apart from this, Aquinas also made it mandatory that the country that was being attacked was one that had done some wrong. In a certain sense, this is to say that the king of the nation that is the aggressor acts as the representative of divine justice and acts against the country that deserves punishment for its earlier actions. Aquinas also makes it mandatory that the country that attacks another one does so for a morally upright purpose; to correct any wrongdoing. It should not, according to Aquinas, do so as a result of any base desire like acquiring new territory. Even conversions are not considered to be a legitimate reason for attacking another country. Acquiring wealth is definitely not considered a reason for attacking another country if one is to go by the definitions for just war that were set forth by Aquinas (Aquinas). In contemporary society, it is only the rulers of a particular country that can normally muster the resources that are needed to fight a war in the ways that modern wars are fought. Wars of the kind that are waged by terrorist groups are not considered to be a part of just war as they are not fought in a direct way by any state. Many such terrorist outfits do allegedly have ideological and financial backing from certain states; however, the unorganized nature of their operations makes it difficult to classify them into any particular form of warfare. Apart from having a sanction from the ruler of a state, a war must also fulfil other conditions according to the contemporary theories of war. It must, first of all, have a real and just cause for attacking another state. This means that the state can attack another one only if there are massive human rights violations that are perpetrated by the other state upon its own populace or the attacker’s populace. It should not be initiated so as to acquire the wealth or natural resources that are a part of the other country’s landscape, according to the contemporary theories of just war. While doing so, the country should not use more violence that is strictly necessary and must not kill more people than would have been harmed in the original situation, that is, the amount of violence that is used needs to be proportional to the magnitude of the situation. Following this, the attacker also needs to have a certain amount of confidence that it would succeed in its intentions of restoring normalcy to the attacked state. Despite all of this, war is to be used as a measure only after the failure of all other measures that are taken by the state. This is a clause that is inserted so as to prevent any misuse of these theories as a sanction for the wars that may be sought to be fought on the basis of flimsy excuses. While fighting the war, according to contemporary just war theories, innocent people are to be left unharmed even though they are a part of another country. One can find echoes of Plato’s and Aristotle’s conceptions of justice here. Innocent people are often not party to decisions that are taken by the rulers of the country. They are however, often caught in the crossfire. This is not a just system and wars should attempt to minimize the harm that is done to innocent civilians. Contemporary just war theories seek to, at least at the level of theory, to overturn the models of Plato and Aristotle and provide justice to the disempowered (Moseley). Another important aspect of the theories as to how just wars are to be fought is the fact as to moral responsibility of the aggressor during the conduct of the war. The soldiers who commit atrocities without any reason are to be punished for their actions by the aggressor state. This is based on the principle of justice where the lives of human beings are considered of equal value (Moseley). This is radically different from the interpretations of Aristotle who believed that the value of the upper strata of the society was more important. He refused to even consider most of the others as citizens of the state (Clayton). Modern theories of justice and war are more democratic in their approach as can be seen from the above discussion. The importance of the theories that have been discussed above lies in the shocking fact that many of the events that happen in today’s world seem to follow the logic of the theories of ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. These actions that are performed by many countries are done so with impunity and they are disguised under virtuous motives. These theories need to be analyzed since it is the loopholes in them that are exploited by stronger countries for the purpose of acquiring wealth from others. Indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians also results from such attacks. An analysis of just war theories and a historical review of the same could open avenues for the establishment of a more peaceful world where people are able to live in harmony with each other. War may continue to be a feature of this society; however, it may then be used as a last resort which is the bet and only way in which it must be employed. Works Cited Aquinas, St. Thomas. “The Just War.” Catholic Education Resource Center. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. . Brown, Eric. “Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. . Clayton, Edward. “Aristotle: Politics” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. . Moseley, Alexander. “Just War Theory”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. . Read More