St. Thomas Aquinas Wages War - Assignment Example

St. Thomas Aquinas Wages War Part What limitations does the medieval thinker St. Thomas Aquinas place on the fighting of a war? The limitations placed on war by the medieval thinker St. Thomas Aquinas are quite complex since they are preceded by years of debates by influential thinkers and philosophers such as St. Augustine and many others. However, it is possible to understand these limitations by analyzing them individually and looking at how St. Thomas considered war as well as the idea of war to be justified in certain cases and unjustifiable in others (Tooke, 1965, Pg. 77). Once these objections have been considered in depth, we can evaluate how applicable they are to the world around us and if they still stand true today. As one of the greatest medieval thinkers, the works of St. Thomas Aquinas hold a special position when it comes to philosophy and ethics. On the subject of war, the Summa Theologiae, is his most relevant work since he considers the idea of war itself to be a sin and thus all war is unjust as well as unlawful (Finch, 2007, II-IIq.40a.1). These objections stem from the Christian heritage which St. Thomas is quite attached to and other objections made to war also connect in some way or the other to the concepts given in the Bible. For example, objections such as war being contrary to peace thus being a sin is certainly an idea which comes from Christianity but St. Thomas also uses logic to help him in his objections to war. For example, he considers the legality of war and suggests that a contest of reason would be perfectly legal since there are no deaths involved when reasons battle but when individual engage in martial contests, they die without reason and thus die without legal causes. However, St. Thomas does not dispute that a war can be just in some situations but lays down strict criteria for a war to be just. He demands that a war should be authorized by a prince who has the right to command the warriors to go to war. Individuals who do not have such authority cannot wage war and should not engage in battle to settle their differences which can be settled in a court of law. A war can be justified if it is fought in self defense and not as a war of aggression. Moreover the war which is ordered by the prince can be fought against people within the land as with people from without the land in order to protect the kingdom. St. Thomas Aquinas also demands that a war should have a just cause, which is to say that a war must only be carried out on those who have shown that they deserve a war to be imposed on them. The war should seek to set things right and should seek out injustices and remove them to restore order. In effect, war becomes a punishment for a nation rather than an individual. This follows the logic of punishing individuals who have done wrong to deserve punishment as nations who have done wrong to deserve the imposition of war. Finally, St. Thomas suggests that the war can only be accepted if those who engage in war have a religious motivation rather than a motivation for worldly goods. Their purpose should be to engage a good cause or to stop an evil cause from progressing. In modern terms, it would be easy to say that St. Thomas would only support a war if it is carried out in a just manner rather than a war where there is no regard for the ethics of war or the dictates of humanitarianism guidelines. As noted by Ramsey (1961, Pg. 37) such points rest heavily on the Christian conscience since they make wars difficult to engage in where objections may be made by any individual who does not take the same viewpoint as those who are engaged in war. The role of noncombatants for example, is a question which troubled St. Thomas since he did not consider killing them to be a justifiable act. However, he did consider them to be expendable if the cause of justice was to be served and such considerations give a lot of leeway in tainting the means by which war is to be carried out. Coady (2007, Pg. 19) notes the objections made by St. Thomas regarding the killing of innocents and says that even modern scientists and thinkers have to consider what their actions can do during a war to innocents. He uses the example of the atomic bomb which was supposed to achieve the end of the greatest war humanity has known but which resulted in the deaths of more than a 100,000 people at one go. However, like St. Thomas, Coady (2007, Pg. 19) is able to see things in absolute black and white and concludes that morality has to be the overriding principle when it comes to war and the killing of innocents is a moral crime which should not be ignored for the sake of expediency. Part 2: Should these limitations be applied to modern warfare? While there are those such as Coady (2007, Pg. 19) who continue to apply the ideas given by St. Thomas to war as we see it today, there are others such as Robertson (2006, Pg. 474) who consider taking a more pragmatic approach to the idea of war and suggest that the ideas noted by St. Thomas may no longer be applicable in a post 9/11 world. Martin and Martin (2003, Pg. 17) discuss the ideas of justice in war in a modern context with reference to the writings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas and note that the two principles of entering into a war may be difficult to follow today. As noted by St. Thomas, the war should be jus in bello i.e. just in action as well as jus ad bellum i.e. just in cause. Martin & Martin (2003, Pg. 23) consider these two clauses to form the basis of a legal war as it is used in common law. In a world which is under threat from terrorism and terrorist action, no act of terrorism can claim to be working with just means even though many terrorist may say that their cause is just. Terrorists and supporters of terrorism may provide a jus ad bellum for their actions but there is no way that all of their actions can be considered just. In modern warfare and as per the rules laid down by the various conventions that nations are a party to, targeting civilians is an abhorrent act but the first target of a terrorist may be civilians as much as the terrorist targets military fighters. However, once the rules defined by St. Thomas are applied to modern warfare against terrorism, Streba (2003, Pg. 72) considers the retaliation against terrorism to often engage in unjust wars. For example, if America authorises a hit against a terrorist target and in doing so causes innocent civilians to be murdered while terrorists are being killed, it would be wrong to brush away these deaths as expected. St. Thomas would have considered these deaths to be wrong and so would other thinkers of our time who believe in his words. Even if it is to get justice, killing innocent civilians goes completely against the dictum of jus in bello thus the entire effort of the war against terror would be tainted. An attack on civilians which comes intentionally or unintentionally is murder. It is illegal and there is no justification for it whether it comes from the hands of a suicide bomber or a cruise missile. As noted by May (2003, Pg. 1) modern warfare is made even more complex by the fact that one may be called a terrorist by some and the same person may be remembered as a freedom fighter by others. Thus the justifiability of actions themselves as well as the names given to those who engage in war may be different depending on the viewpoint taken of the war. In modern warfare, Sterba (2003, Pg. 11) notes that only two wars in the last fifty years have fulfilled the requirements of St. Thomas. These wars have had both just means and just causes. The first war is the India-Pakistan war of 1971 that led to the independence of Bangladesh and the Tanzanian Intervention which took soldiers into Uganda when it was under the control of Idi Amin. He goes on to say that the vast majority of wars in history have been unjust. Even the wars which have resulted due to the acts of terrorists have been unjust in many ways and these unjust wars often include America as an aggressor. For example, the American interventions in Nicaragua, Panama and other South American countries are used as prime examples of unjustified war. Additionally, the Russian incursion into Afghanistan as well as the Israeli movements in the West Bank can also be called unjust both in terms of the causes for the war and the means used to fight the battles. It seems that in the real world, there are no rules and the idea of a just war remains as much of an enigma as it was in the times of St. Thomas. While moral virtues and religion might have provided St. Thomas the means to consider a war as just or unjust, today we can get the same information from the media and our intellectuals. However, just as opinions about war and the means to conduct war differed in the time of St. Thomas, the opinions remain divided today. Works Cited Aquinas, T. 2007. Summa Theologiae Extract. Melbourne: Trinity College Foundation Studies. Coady, T. 2007, “A just cause for war does not excuse indiscriminate killing”, Opinion, Nov. 14. Pg. 19. Finch, R. 2007. “Introduction.” In Aquinas Summa Theologiae Extract. Melbourne: Trinity College Foundation Studies. Martin, G. & Martin, C. 2003. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. London: Sage Publications. May, C. 2003, When Is Terrorism Justified? When the intellectual elite tell you it is, stupid! [Online] Available at: National Review website, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-may022503.asp Ramsey, P. 1961, War and the Christian Conscience. Durham: Duke University Press. Robertson, G. 2006, Crimes against Humanity. Camberwell: Penguin. Sterba, J. 2003. Terrorism and International Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tooke, J. 1965, The Just War. London: SPCK. Read More