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

[Victor]

I think there is such a thing as a Just War. But I do not look at any war and say “that is good”. Something Just, doesn’t always correlate with good (visually speaking). How can anybody look at a war and say “it is good”?

Jus in bello (“Laws of War”) is a bit more difficult and I agree with you that it’s almost impossible to fight justly. How far will people go in the name of justice? As far as they can muster. At least to a soldier that's how it may appear. But one never knows any of these outcomes with jus ad bellum.

As a note, I have always understood the Just War Doctrine from the RCC to mostly cover jus ad bellum without much of any mention of Jus in bello.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

That's the Orthodox position but it's not the same as Just War theory. To posit simply that sometimes a war can be the lesser of two evils is not the same as saying that a war can actually be just. Orthodoxy has no equivalent of RC Just War theory at all and yet, as I said, if what you considered to be Just War were correct we would. 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

See my post above.

[Victor]

I'm going to put more thought into your "last resort" oberservation. I suppose whatever you do to define and capture what last resort is going to be strongly connected to time. Cause we can talk until the sun comes down on what to do but if a country is getting ready to nuke us (and intelligences have confirmed it), then I think any further discussion is futile.

[Random]

For those undecided or ambivalent as to whether there is such a thing as a Just War, like I am, try waiting until the One World Government is fully in place then see if the choice to oppose unjust dominion by the few and agressive totalitarianism causes a definite shift in your view one way or the other. I tend to think those have no regard for Just War simply reject it because they lack something tangible to stir them to conflict, something to struggle for or fight for. I know if I am threatened, my loved ones are in jeporady, and my right to a peaceful autonomous existence is negated, then I am not against violence as a means to an end. Needs-be-necessity-must...there might be no Just War, but there is and has to be Justice after all.

[kreeden]

Originally Posted by Victor

I'm going to put more thought into your "last resort" oberservation. I suppose whatever you do to define and capture what last resort is going to be strongly connected to time. Cause we can talk until the sun comes down on what to do but if a country is getting ready to nuke us (and intelligences have confirmed it), then I think any further discussion is futile.

I agree that it would be a little late for discussion , after a nuke hits . But really , how do you KNOW for sure , untill it does happen ? I mean there is a missile coming towards you . How do you know for sure if it is a nuke ? If it is aimed at you ? And that is wasn't a mistake ? Unless one waits untill it is too late , they have to base their actions upon conjecture . And therein lays the problem eh ?

Life is a box of chocolates , and all of that .

[Victor]

Originally Posted by kreeden

I agree that it would be a little late for discussion , after a nuke hits . But really , how do you KNOW for sure , untill it does happen ? I mean there is a missile coming towards you . How do you know for sure if it is a nuke ? If it is aimed at you ? And that is wasn't a mistake ? Unless one waits untill it is too late , they have to base their actions upon conjecture . And therein lays the problem eh ?

Life is a box of chocolates , and all of that .

What else can we do but get our information from authorities? The best thing to do (IMO) is to work on our defense. Anything shot at us will be taken down from the sky. Easier said then done but if our focus is to extend our options and keep discussion alive, then I think it's much better spent then making missiles solely to take out a population.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Victor

I'm going to put more thought into your "last resort" oberservation. I suppose whatever you do to define and capture what last resort is going to be strongly connected to time. Cause we can talk until the sun comes down on what to do but if a country is getting ready to nuke us (and intelligences have confirmed it), then I think any further discussion is futile.

Hi Victor. I agree. But that's why I'm wondering if that criterion is even valid.

It doesn't even have to be as dramatic as a nuclear missile. Say there's a genocide going on and we know that 1000s of people are dying every day. By "last resort" are we really saying that we're gonna sit around waiting to see if every possible avenue has been tried before we go in and do something? Otoh, asside from WWII, do we have any examples of war making such situations better?

And is there anyone out there who would argue that our fighting in WWII (the allies) was unjustified? If so, how do you suggest that we should have dealt with Hitler? (I promise that I'm not asking this question to attack pacifists. I actually want to be convinced.)

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Victor

What else can we do but get our information from authorities? The best thing to do (IMO) is to work on our defense. Anything shot at us will be taken down from the sky. Easier said then done but if our focus is to extend our options and keep discussion alive, then I think it's much better spent then making missiles solely to take out a population.

It seems to me the best thing to do is prevent that situation in the first place, where a missle is streaming at you and you don't know whether it's a nuke or not. It seems to me that by the time we're talking about war, even if we can justify it, we've already failed somewhere.