Just War Theory (tradition, choice, evolution, hell, theology)

[Seyorni]

Would it be just to send an expeditionary force into Darfur to effect the peaceful resettlement of the Fur?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

Would it be just to send an expeditionary force into Darfur to effect the peaceful resettlement of the Fur?

I would certainly say that it might be the lesser of two evils (though all other options should be exhausted first), but an evil it would remain.

James

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by shaktinah

(Note: I got these criteria from the web, but I didn't give attribution because the same criteria w/ explanations appear verbatim on several sites. Just google 'just war criteria'.)

It concerns me when something "appear verbatim on several sites" without attribution. Assertions take on the force of truths simply as a consequence of undisciplined repetition. So, for example, re jus ad bellum ...

Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war

What of the Spanish Civil War with its International Brigades?

Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved

But the whole issue is about 'weighing good'. I would suggest that a more appropriate definition of proportionality is that one's acts must be constrained to those necessary to achieve one's goal.

Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success

The Jewish revolt? The Spanish Civil War? A people have a right to respond to an existential threat.

I believe that necessary and proportional actions to protect a people against existential threats to life and liberty are justified.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Mike182

but according to just war theory, the aggressive force does have the right to back down and surrender, after that point, further hostilities are not needed, and thus not justified.

one of the conditions for jus ad bellum is "last resort" - if a peaceful opportunity appears to resolve the situation, it must be taken over hostilities - this would be also be the case if a peaceful opportunity were to arise during conflict.

I fully agree! However, I am not sure that there was a substantial opportunity afforded here. For all we know, this was merely wishful thinking by a couple of patriots wishing to keep Japan from all harm. While I applaud their efforts even at this late date, I would concur with Dulles last comment.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Quoth_The _Raven

I also think it's fair to complain when you're laying there saying 'Please let me give up,all I ask is to keep my vital organs' and the other guy ignores you and then proceeds to try out his shiny new knife on you to see how it works. That becomes unecessary use of force.

You get this from where? While desperate the Japanese nation seemed quite willing to throw everything at us, including kamikaze pilots to win this war. One news paper clipping that has been twisted out of context does not make much of a compelling argument that this was happening.

Again, being an American, I fully admit my bias in examining the details. However, I must admit that the arguments seem to come from an article that seems even more biased against America. Make no doubt about it, I HATE WAR. I hate all of it. The US was criticised by the free world at the time for being too isolationist and for their unwillingness to enter the conflict. We endured several provocations before rolling up our sleeves and defending out allies and then ourselves. Unlike the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan where we were way too eager to invade, we were quite resistant to prosecuting Worlld War II even to the point of being negligent.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe that necessary and proportional actions to protect a people against existential threats to life and liberty are justified.

Could you clarify the term "existential threat"? Thanks in advance.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The RC theology does not simply stop at saying all war is evil but sometimes may be less evil than the alternative but, rather, goes so far as to say that some war is good. An attitude that I cannot possibly share.

James

I imagine that those "good" wars would be considered holy wars. People fighting on the side of God's righteousness. I know that the Catholic church was instrumental in defining just war theory, but I wasn't thinkning of this purely as a Catholic notion. People now use the term in secular discussions who don't even know its origins.