The Catholic Morality of the Just War Theory - Research Paper Example

Just War Theory (JWT) Important to any understanding of a moral code are the situations and circumstances under which the principles of that code apply perfectly or imperfectly. During war, imperatives that claim one ought not to kill another human being may not apply perfectly to the state of affairs one finds himself in. In Catholicism, moral principles as given by God are thought to be incontrovertible absolutes, which is a belief affirmed by Just War Theory: a set of tenets adopted by Catholic ethicists, theologians, and scholars to justify conflicts in terms of philosophical and theosophical bases. Just War Theory (JWT) is thought to apply to all aspects of war, from its beginning, course, and ending, such that any believer in Catholicism can engage in conflict that conforms to its moral foundation. Because of the long history of the JWT tradition, the theory itself has a wide-reaching level of applicability to different kinds of conflict, and so provides a framework to guide Catholics, as well as members of other denominations, to war’s successful and moral conclusion. Although JWT theories have classically held war in disregard, their theory is realist insofar as it accounts for the possible necessity of war under no other alternative outcome. For a Catholic, following the proper moral guidelines during war, as well as in daily life, will keep him from straying to a different path and the slippery slope toward sin. Just War Theory consists of a number of criteria for starting, carrying out, and ending wartime conflicts. Essentially, these standards state that war ought to be waged in defense and only defense with sufficient evidence. War as “last resort” indicates that war, when waged, is waged as the last viable option, when peaceful alternatives no longer exist. Intention also plays a primary role in deciding whether an army’s advances are legitimate. That is, the reason for war must be legitimate to the extent that it is being used for punishing wrongs and protecting innocent. Part of this intentionality condition is the question of proportionality, which is the calculated benefit to harms ratio from the perspective of the invading army. Also built into JWT are conditions that specify moral legitimacy during the course of war (in Latin, Jus in Bello). Primary categories within Jus in Bello include principles of necessity, of distinction, and of proportionality. The principle of necessity specifies that war ought to be governed by the principle of minimum force with regard to how the military defeats its enemy. Given the choice between decimating a town in order to kill one target and sending in a small force to selectively pursue one target, a military ought to choose the second alternative because it minimizes force. Secondly, the principle of distinction differentiates combatants from non-combatants, and it stipulates that no non-combatants should be targeted for aggression in war. Crimes of reprisal and revenge against civilians, like those committed by invading armies on innocent populations, are strictly prohibited under JWT. Lastly, the principle of proportionality states just war is conducted on the basis of calculating benefit to harm to combatants and non-combatants in the war zone. Following the principle of proportionality, a general knows not to attack a city when he knows such an attack will result in unwarranted and disproportionate collateral damage. Just post bellum, which lays out the proper conditions for ending war under contemporary Just War Theory, is a relatively new addition to the centuries-old Catholic tradition. According to Brian Orend (2006), a number of principles regarding the proper way to end war can be extrapolated from previously established rules and criteria regarding the beginning and carrying out of just wars. For instance, principles of distinction, of intention, and of proportionality all apply to the signing of ceasefires, treaties, reparations, war crimes, and reconstructions. Additionally, parties must have just cause to terminate war: that is, they should only end war when the original just cause for war has been realized. Then they should only create terms of surrender that the losing side of the conflict can reasonably agree to. Dating back to ancient times, Just War Theory is a tradition of Catholic medieval origins, namely to Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Because of its role in the Catholic Church, and its history extending back to centuries ago, Just War Theory is still in wide use within the Church. In concert with its history throughout the Middle Ages and the modern period, the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives four conditions created in the Just War tradition for the legitimate defense by military force. This document was published in 1992, approved by Pope John Paul II as an official text to universalize Catholic Christian principles. These four conditions include: (a) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain [just cause]; (b) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective [last resort]; (c) there must be serious prospects of success [probability of success]; and (d) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated [proportionality] (U.S. Catholic Church). Clearly, the Just War Theory tradition is still in active use in the philosophical foundation upon which the Catholic Church exists, uniting Catholics that live today with the Catholics of medieval times. Nevertheless, ancient and contemporary JWT concepts can be criticized and critiqued on a number of fronts. According to Andrew Fiala, author of The Just War Myth (2007), actual wars never conform even roughly to the idealizations in Just War Theory, which is supported by current events and ideas, including the idea of preemptive war, the Bush Doctrine, and torture. These facts about how war is conducted today are contrasted with traditional views of war, and the differences are taken to be indications that JWT does not apply to reality. This criticism rests on the assumption that if a theory (in particular, a moral theory) does not conform to reality that it ought to be scraped and done away with. Frequently, criticisms of Just War Theory are made on pacifist grounds, insofar as Just War Theory is often presented as the second-best ethical alternative to all-out war. For rhetorical purposes, these criticisms portray JWT as impractical in reality and therefore suggest wars should not be waged in the first place. On its face, this criticism seems to make intuitive sense because not all wars are the same in terms of the players and the battleground on which it is fought. Nevertheless, even if the principles contained within Just War Theory cannot be accomplished in reality, there still exists the practical necessity of moral guidelines in order to temper the effects and causalities that inevitably exist in war. Insofar as JWT presents a realistic picture of war, it accounts for the necessity of war in certain situations, unlike pacifisms that discount the necessity of war and are powerless to react when it inevitably happens. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, JWT exists as a valid and theologically legitimate means of guiding the actions of Catholics before, during, and after wartime. In contrast to other theories about war, including realism, absolutism, consequentialism, and militarism, JWT is well-represented by political theories. Realism proposes that morality does not apply to war; absolutism believes moral principles apply universally, making murder under any circumstance unjustifiable; consequentialism amounts to the view that the “end justifies the means”; and militarism sees war as, in some if not all cases, a beneficial process for society. These varying positions differ from JWT in a number of instantly recognizable ways, particularly in terms of the value each position places on the role of war in society. Each of the four above positions are equally absolute, while JWT is the most practical, and realistic, position open for individuals to use as they take part in the ugly act of war. Additionally, it is the only way for a Catholic to justify his involvement, and to shape the manner in which he is involved, in war to remain in the good graces of God. The realistic view that war is inevitable stems from the Catholic teaching hat men are sinful. Because men are prone to mistakes (due to infallibility), men require force to protect themselves from other forms of force. When human beings are not in the midst of war, they ought to establish just and peaceful order to protect against the need for war, up until that need for war is too pressing to avoid. Just War Theory provides a theosophical framework for an individual Catholic to treat his moral principles with respect and commitment, despite finding himself in morally compromising situations. Works Cited Catholic Answers. Just War Doctrine. 2008. 2010 . Fiala, Andrew. The Just War Myth: The Moral Illusions of War. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007. Macksey, Charles. "War." 1912. The Catholic Encyclopedia. 7 November 2010 . Moseley, Alexander. "Just War Theory." 10 February 2009. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 7 November 2010 . Orend, Brian. "Justice after War." Ethics & International Affairs, 16 (2006): 43-56. —. War. 4 February 2000. 6 November 2010 . Peach, Lucinda. "An Alternative to Pacifism? Feminism and Just-War Theory." Hypatia, 9 (2009): 152-172. U.S. Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Image, 1995. Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic, 1978. Read More