The Ethics of Just War
In a world filled with terrorism and nuclear threats, the ethics of war and peace are as relevant as ever. For centuries, Christians have tried reconcile these two seemingly contradictory ideas, war and peace, through the Just War Theory.
In this essay, we’ll see why most Christians through history have believed that free nations may use force against enemy threats. While Scripture says little about the actual means of warfare, it does recognize war as sometimes unavoidable as a result of the fall. We will also examine the traditional criteria for just war theories and how they have been interpreted.
The Reason for Just War
Many have engaged Just War Theory by providing a moral framework for thinking about and conducting war. A proper understanding of the doctrine of sin is necessary to understand and shape a just war theory. Scripture affirms that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23). Additionally, human beings possess an innate desire for justice because we bear the image of One whose throne is built on justice and righteousness (Ps. 89:14). Thus, we see the connection between our view of sin and our view of God’s concern for justice.
However, as we know, perfect justice isn’t always seen in a fallen world. We will never get people to live perfectly in a fallen world. This is the tension we live in. Going to war may restrain human nature, but we can’t get rid of the strain of sin. The flood in Genesis 6-9 and its aftermath reveal this. We can discourage people from lying, but we can’t completely eradicate the world of all liars. We can try to secure our borders, but people will still find a way to infiltrate.
Recognizing the fallenness of nature, and the subjectivity of human judgment, some firm moral principles have been historically considered as providing a sound basis for going to war, and then carrying out a “just war.”[1]
Just War Principles: Before War[2]
There are requirements that ensure reasons for going to war. However, there have been some new proposals brought into the mix. For instance, some have asked if Cyber attacks give warrant for just cause.[3] Therefore, these requirements I mention below have been used to formulate reasons for going to war by some, but not all.
Just Cause
Wars initiated by unprovoked anger aren’t morally legitimate. The enemy must do something harmful against you to wage war. For example, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II gave the United States just cause to declare war.
Legitimate Authority
Declaration of war should come from heads of state or those responsible for the public order. Martin Luther commented on this principle: “Christians therefore do not fight as individuals or for their own benefit, but as obedient servants of the authorities under whom they live.”[4] Therefore, only the proper authorities are morally permissible to declare war. Individuals fight for public order at the behest of the government.
Right Intention
The desires for going to war must be morally right and exclude any motive to punish or humiliate opposing enemies. The intent for war should be to secure peace for everyone involved. Augustine wrote, “For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is raged in order that peace may be obtained.”[5]
Last Resort
The application of this principle has met debate, with some saying that there are always more ways to talk or time to establish peace. However, in a realist ethic, last resort should operate within a set time frame. If the opposing side refuses within a reasonable time frame, then the needs for this principle have been met.
Probability of Success
The principle here is that we don’t want to destroy human life and property, knowing ahead of time that we will lose the war in the end. However, a crusade paradigm guiding the ethics of war thinks differently. Those with crusade thinking say, “It is better to die for God, than to not try!” This framework of thinking is contrary to the just war tradition.
Proportionality of Projected Results
The question in this principle is not “can we win?” but rather, “will it be worth it?” This work is all done in anticipation. Whatever good a nation hopes to achieve by going to war must be greater than whatever costs are foreseen as a result of going to war.
Right Spirit Principle
If you hate your enemy or enjoy going to war, then that is not right to go to war. This is different than the aforementioned right intention principle. Right intention refers to restoring established order. Right spirit refers to how you feel about it. Right spirit tends to be subjective while right intention tends to be objective.
Just War Principles: During War
Similarly to the principles mentioned above, these requirements I mention below have been used to formulate reasons for fighting in war are just by some, but not all.
Proportionality in the Use of Force
There should be no deadly force that goes beyond the necessary means to achieve a just objective. You don’t win the battle and then line up enemy soldiers and keep shooting them. Therefore, no action in war should be taken that knowingly creates more harm than good.
Discrimination Principle
Discrimination is immoral when making moral judgments about a person’s loyalty based on the color of their skin, nationality, income level, or even gender. These have no bearing on a person’s ability to make a moral decision. In a just war ethic, discrimination tries to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. Plato was the first to teach this principle: “In any conflict, the whole population consisting of men, women, and children are not the enemy.”[6] You are trying to distinguish between military and non-military targets in battle. Therefore, it is wrong to target civilians with deadly force.
Avoidance of Evil Means
In the process of fighting, some things should never be done. Examples: executing prisoners, taking hostages, terrorizing civilians, and killing noncombatants.
Good Faith Principle
Even in battle, the enemy should not be regarded as sub-human. You may treat your enemy as people doing bad things, but you should treat them as human beings. This principle goes back to peace being the end for which you’re fighting. Good faith is required in hopes of reconciliation to come later.
Probability of Success
This principle not only applies to conduct before war but conduct in war also. If a king or commanding general realizes that victory is impossible, then he has a duty to end the fighting in an honorable surrender. A famous example of this can be seen when General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, surrendered his Confederate forces to General Ulysses S. Grant and the Union Army in Appomattox, Virginia, having realized it was the only reasonable choice by that point in time.
Right Spirit in War
In battle, there is a tension between using deadly force to stop enemy soldiers and loving enemy soldiers. Soldiers should regret having to kill or wound enemy soldiers, even while using deadly force to stop enemy soldiers. The film American Sniper tried to address this reality. Augustine writes further on this concept: “Even in waging war, cherish the spirit of a peacemaker.”[7] The principle is that you should love the enemy in a sense of regretting it, even when it is justified.
Conclusion
Christians’ ultimate moral authority comes from God. Questions of the ethics of war and peace are not tied exclusively to Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, natural law, or theological tradition—although these have contributed significantly to the discussion. The question Christians should consider is if just war principles are in Scripture. Notice below how Scripture affirms the principles behind three just war theory concepts:
Competent Authority – “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Rom. 13:1).
Avoidance of Evil Means – “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody” (Rom. 12:17).
Probability of Success – “Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace” (Lk. 14:31-32).
As long as evil and sin is present in this world and until Christ returns, wars will continue to the end of human history (Dn. 9:26). The tension of living in a fallen world is seen in this battle between establishing peace and executing justice. John Stuart Mill speaks to this tension saying, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things… A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”[8]
For the Christian, we long for the day when there will be perfect peace and perfect rule. Jesus will return and make war with justice one day (Mt. 24:3-22). When human history comes to an end, there will be a new heaven and a new earth and Jesus Christ will rule forever with perfect peace and justice (Rev. 19:11-20:15). Until then, Christians must carefully study, weigh, and understand principles of warfare through the lens of Scripture and theological tradition.
____________________
[1] The end goal of a just war is not to bring social perfection. Crusade war is more aligned with this ethic. The object of war is to destroy evil and achieve ideals like the protection of personal liberty.
[2] I am indebted to my Christian Ethics professor, Dr. Daniel Heimbach, for his insight on Just War Principles. He is Senior Research Professor of Christian Ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Before that, he served one year as Executive Director of the Defense Readiness Council, two years as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower, two years on the White House staff under President George H. W. Bush both as Associate Director for Domestic Policy and as Deputy Executive Secretary to the Domestic Policy Council.
[3] See Max Fisher’s interview of Defense Secretary, Ash Carter on the “blurring lines of deterrence.” Read here: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11333276/ash-carter-transcript
[4] Arthur F. Holmes, ed., War and Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 146.
[5] Ibid., 63.
[6] Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960), 38.
[7] Ibid.
[8] John Stuart Mill, “The Contest in America.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 24, Is. 143, pages 683-684. Harper & Bros., New York, April 1862.
Recent Comments