War: Possibly Justifiable, but Never Just
The Apotheosis of War by Vasily Vasilyevich Vereshchagin
I have for some time held the position that the criteria of just war theory cannot knowingly be met, but I’ve lately come to the conclusion that there can be no just war. There never has been a war that was just, and there never will be. War cannot be just, even if it can be justified.
To say a war is just is to say that it embodies—in its devastation and dismemberment of bodies—justice. To say a war is just is to say it is morally good, and this I cannot say. The reasons for which a war is fought may be just reasons—self-defense, for example—and, yes, honorable actions of heroism and virtue may accompany the bloodshed and ruination of lives, property and environments; but the mass destruction that indelibly marks the war and gives it breath and blood and body cries out not for the word “justice” but for the word “evil.”
When assessing particular wars, I intend to speak no longer of just war theory, but maybe, regrettably, of justified war theory. If by some tragedy I conclude the criteria of the theory are met, I will see not a just and righteous endeavor, but a justified yet nonetheless nightmarishly evil failure.
I must admit that this conclusion places me in a morally problematic position, for I seem to be saying that one may legitimately commit evil for the sake of some good end. I seem, in other words, to have accepted consequentialism in rejecting just war theory.
One way I can escape the consequentialist view is to say that a justified war is a physical evil, but not a moral evil, but I’m not willing to say this. That war can be undertaken only as a last resort, and then only with the meeting of other limiting criteria, implies that war is not merely a physical evil, like surgery, nor indeed a just and righteous undertaking, but something to be avoided morally. I have to say, therefore, that war is a moral evil. Yet in saying that this moral evil may be justified, I seem to be embracing the idea that evil may be done for a good end, a position I have up to this point rejected.
I’m wondering if the case of justified war discloses us to a difference between types of moral evils, some that may be justified and some that never can be done licitly. To speak in religious language, are there moral evils that are not sins? If there are such evils, I’m not sure what to call them. Justifiable evils, perhaps? Tragic evils? I don’t know.
Moral theologians and philosophers have throughout history given moral cover for doing horrible things. They’ve made distinctions between formal and material cooperation with evil, and posited principles such as double-effect, but these comforts to the conscience don’t appear to help me here. I’m willing, I think, to go the route of denying even the justifiability of war, of giving myself wholeheartedly over to pacifism, but I’m still far from certain that this course is my only option.
Whichever step I take and in whatever direction, I remain, as a religious man, haunted by this reminder from John Caputo: “Just-war doctrine is already a failure of faith, treating unconditional peace and forgiveness as simply impossible, even while repeating the words of Jesus that with God all things are possible.” The very idea of just war, Caputo says, was “the result of sitting down to the table with the powers of this world.” The idea makes sense, but it “weakens and attenuates what St. Paul called the folly (moria) of the cross. It adopts the views not of Jesus but of Cicero, not of the Kingdom of God but of the Roman Empire.”
“Just imagine the challenge Jesus would have faced trying to work “just war” into the Sermon on the Mount!” Caputo exclaims.
Kyle Cupp is a freelance writer and editor with a background in literature, language, and philosophy.
Comments are closed.
Excellent post Kyle. Deep down, I feel very similar to what you feel. I can’t explain it in the way you do, therefore I thank you for attempting to explain it.
Thank you, Cindy.
Great post, Kyle. One reason I didn’t make the Army a career is that I could not find a comfortable answer to the question, “What happens to the soul of someone who is killed in the act of bayoneting someone in the guts?”
I also wonder what the early Christians, the ones who were martyred rather than pay tribute to Caesar, would have made of modern-day Christians serving eagerly in the armed forces of the United States. Pondering that question ought to make anyone pondering a military career deeply uncomfortable, to say the least.
I respect people who join the military to defend their country, though I can’t say defense of the U.S. has specifically been the motive of those who’ve lately taken us to war. I’m also saddened that most people, myself included, go about their lives oblivious to our multiple military engagements overseas. We act as though we’re not at war, which is a shame.
As for the early Christians, I’m not sure what they would think of their fellow Christians who have undertaken the life of a soldier, though I’ve no doubt what they’d think of Christians cheerleaders of war and violence.
That war can be undertaken only as a last resort, and then only with the meeting of other limiting criteria, implies that war is not merely a physical evil, like surgery, nor indeed a just and righteous undertaking, but something to be avoided morally. I have to say, therefore, that war is a moral evil.
This, I believe, needs some rethinking. To say that something is to be avoided morally, and precisely only as a last resort, does not yield the necessary conclusion that it is a moral evil. What it does mean is that, given its potentially (or, in this case, given the fall of man and the continuance of concupiscence even in those reborn by water and the Spirit, even inevitably) terrible consequences, and the basic certainty that making use of war will induce some, probably many if not most, to fall into grave sin (of probably all the capital sins), is (1) that to make use of war as anything other than a last resort would be a grave moral evil, and (2) even as a last resort it may well in many circumstances be better not to make use of war, better to suffer the consequences than unleash the painfully foreseeable consequences of war.
On a less dramatic scale, we can think of several other last resorts which are more like war than like surgery. Cutting off communication with a heroin-addicted, violent child who has demonstrated the willingness to manipulate and assault members of the family, for example. The act itself is terrible, since cutting off communication with a loved one can have quite negative consequences (even in less dire situations, like sending a small child to his room). To cut off communication with a difficult, even morally compromised child cannot be done lightly, and truly must come as a last resort. Said differently, the “last resort” here isn’t merely the physical risk (as with potentially lethal surgery) but a moral and spiritual one (e.g. might we drive the rebellious child further into darkness and rebellion). So, to choose such dangerous without powerful motives and in the absence of alternatives is morally dubious. However, we would not then yield the conclusion that making such a choice is a moral evil.
One of the problems of most analogies to war, of course, is that, at the personal level, we are (relatively) more in charge of how at least we respond, can do more “damage control” if and when we find our decisions leading us or those around us into moral evil worse than what we sought to prevent or correct. Having gone to war, these consequences are far more difficult to keep in check, and indeed will tend to unleash their worst not on enemy combatants, but on the innocent. Even so, this is at least as much if not more a result of the mode of warfare chosen and not the coercive use of lethal force against unjust aggression as such.
Would Jesus go to war? We know he did not. Did God bless Moses and Joshua, David and Judah Maccabee? What of Joan of Arc or Charles of Austria? I mention these not to shut down conversation, nor even to suggest that your vision does not have a certain power to it, but to draw those concerns into a perhaps wider, historic witness which included people no less aware of the horrors of war, but not willing to reach the kinds of conclusions towards which you are headed.
the basic certainty that making use of war will induce some, probably many if not most, to fall into grave sin (of probably all the capital sins)
I hesitate to take on a Dominican in matters of theology, Father, but couldn’t that be understood to be deliberately and willfully placing oneself or others in a near occasion of sin, which is itself a sin?
Indeed, all things being equal, placing oneself and others in a situation highly likely to produce unhappy moral results is a bad thing, morally and otherwise. Even so, it is not always morally illicit. Some occasions of proclaiming the truth, for example, might predictably lead others to reject what we have to say and confirm themselves in error. We ought to avoid such situations, but sometimes the need for faithful witness requires even knowingly being the occasion for others to harden their hearts and is this not, as such, a sin (on the part of the one witnessing; it is a sin on the part of those who harden themselves against the truth).
I may be wrong, but I remember God not permitting the kings who waged war to enter the temple. Some of them had short lives and violent deaths. I do know that none of them nor after them came close to what Christ continues to do. I would rather follow the example of Christ if I had the grace.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that war is always a moral evil that one must confess as a sin, but the mass, horrific death it brings qualifies it, in my view, as a moral evil of perhaps another sort. But yes, this begs for more thought.
I take your point about actions that are not evil that we nevertheless shouldn’t choose lightly but only as a last resort because of the spiritual and moral risks, but war still seems a special case, as it involves not only risk, but the inevitability of death and destruction as intended, freely-chosen means.
I agree with everything except the statement of “I’m willing, I think…of giving myself wholeheartedly over to pacifism…”. Christ on the Cross is not pacifism, rather, it is an action of a love. If we had leaders of the Church in the past and present meditate more deeply on the Cross I believe history would have looked a lot different. Have you seen the movie “Joy Noel”? It is based on actual events in WWI.
Thank you for this excellent post.
What do you mean by “pacifism” that you distinguish it from “an action of love”?
Kyle, When I think of pacifism I think of the anit-war demonstrations in the 60′s and 70′s and I do not see these demonstrations as acts of love, rather, I see them as rebellion against authority.
When I think of an action of love vs pacifism I see with love a conscious sacrifice of letting go of everything material and comfortable with the object living one’s life for the specific purpose of nurturing peace into a large community of others from around the world and creating a worldwide plan for sacrificial expression. Pacifism on the other hand appears to me a reaction to violence that is situational and not well planned for long term goals of creating the passion necessary for others to want to join. Something is missing.
I don’t buy the semantics of the proposition “‘Just War’ = ‘War is Justice’”. I’m sorry, but it’s just not reasonable. Outside the world of forms, at least, when we use an abstract adjective, we tend to use it to imply that the target participates in some accidental way in the qualities that the adjective employed. A just war need not – and, I would say you’re right, can never – be an embodiment of Justice. However, it is implicitly undertaken in the service of justice in some particularized condition. Self-defense, for example (not, obviously, the preemptive kind). It’s all well and good to say that we as Christians might take an extreme stand and take example from the Mennonites (for example), but the point of radical displays of virtue is that they are over and above what we are required to do. Justice as a virtue commands her own respect, and if someone is unjustly threatening my right to life (again, for example), then I believe that justice empowers me to employ violence to protect that life, within limits.
Hmm,… “Wolfanwalt” might not be the best moniker to use in this context, if you want your argument about Justice to be taken seriously. And who’s to say the Mennonites don’t have it right? If their primary action is quietly radical adherence to virtue (as opposed to display thereof), this is neither extreme nor “over and above what we are required to do.”
In the statement “just war,” the adjective “just” describes “war,” which may be shorthand for “war fought for just reasons,” but not necessarily so.
Let me begin by thanking Kyle for articulating very real concerns about the very real problem of how wrongly our country wages war. I see how he and others can arrive at te position that “there is no such thing as a just war.” But I think it is too important to leave it there.
In the world, there is evil; real evil, not just different approaches to achieving one’s national interests. It is important we understand when we can properly involve the use of force and when we cannot.
It seems to me there are times when not intervening in the evils of the world is immoral. The problem is we’re pretty good at fighting and some of us like to do it way too much. But there should be a way to recognize this and still allow for the use of force to stop an unjust aggressor, not simply say there is no moral way to use force.
I like Tolkien’s line about not loving the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory, but only that which they defend. But that’s a very difficult line not to cross.
Of course I might be completely wrong. Perhaps refusing to use force against any and all evil will hasten the return of our Lord and pacifism is the only way to do it.
I agree that there are times when not intervening in the evils of the world is immoral. There are times, in other words, that war is the lesser evil, though it is still an evil.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said that, given that war is the deliberate killing of human persons, how could it ever be just ?
God Bless
I’d just add that, in my admittedly limited experience – mostly at the tactical level, the US Army takes a great deal of time and effort into developing and enforcing rules for the use of force, proper treatment of prisoners and non-combatants, and in targeting, to reduce the amount of innocent death, injury, suffering, and damage.
It obviously still occurs, but it bears mentioning that taking efforts to avoid it and taking actions to stop and correct it when it happens are a deliberate part of waging warfare in the US.
…And when Mother Teresa is a Doctor of the Church or is accordingly cited in a Magisterial context, that will be absolutely pertinent. But the saints are not held up to us as examples of holistic theology or action; rather as examples of heroic virtue. Mother Teresa may have had a multitude of private opinions that have no bearing on her sanctity. Just saying.
I think that Jacques Maritain will help us here. In his discussion of the “concentrational universe” (l’univers concentrationnaire) in Man and the State, i.e. the kind of morality that would obtain in a concentration camp, he outlines two options: not engaging at all in “political” activity because it looks to be always morally compromised in the worst sort of way or being willing to use any means whatever, however rotten, to get worse of even worse torturers than oneself. The first approach, while justifiable on his view, is “not advisable” while the second is “wrong in itself”.
So, what are we to do? His answer lies in the realization that while the same moral law always applies, “the moral nature or specification, the moral object of the same physical acts, changes when the situation to which they pertain becomes so different that the inner relation of the will to the thing done becomes itself typically different. In our civilized societies it is not a murder, it is a meritorious deed for a fighting man to kill an enemy soldier in a just war. In utterly barbarized societies like a concentration camp, or even in quite particular conditions like those of clandestine resistance in an occupied country, many things which were, as to their moral nature, objectively fraud or murder or perfidy in ordinary civilized life cease, now, to come under the same definition and become, as to their moral nature, objectively permissible or ethical things. There are still, there are always good and evil actions; not every means whatever is permissible; it is still and it is always true that the end does not justify the means; moral principles keep on still and will always keep on dividing good and bad means from each other: but the line of demarcation has shifted.”
He has more on this, of course. Anyway, I thought it might provide some helpful considerations to work through the dilemma Kyle faces, and which he invites us to face as well.
Good food for thought. Thank you.
Thanks for these thoughtful reflections, Kyle. And for the comment about Mother Theresa, who was only restating the Church’s unwavering teaching that the deliberate choice to take a human life always constitutes murder. If you intend to kill a person, and then you kill that person, the Church teaches that you are guilty of murder.
What Mother Theresa was getting at, I think, is that for some very very strange reason, the Church inexplicably does not apply this teaching to soldiers. This has nothing to do with double-effect. Double-effect reasoning (starting with Augustine) has only been applied to civilians. Soldiers and agents of the state are except from the fifth commandment.
I have never seen it explained how this can be so, other than a throw-away paragraph by Thomas Aquinas to explain why public authorities may kill, but not private citizens:
The whole thing is really somewhat maddening–on one hand, the prohibition of deliberate homicide, and on the other hand (having nothing to do with double-effect), the allowance of state-sanctioned homicide.
Mother Theresa rightly points out that whether I am commanded to kill or not, I still kill deliberately. And how can that be just?
You could really spend all day reading Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2
And here’s the essence of this whole question, I believe:
The Universal Call to Holiness and the Church’s insistence upon the permanence of human dignity seem to undercut everything Aquinas is teaching. It seems to me that soldiers and police are operating according to three concepts that have been abandoned by the Church–one, that the call to holiness only applies to clergy, two, that human beings can lose their human dignity, and three, that the deliberate killing of a sinner is therefore licit.
I don’t see that deliberate killing has a leg to stand on.
Nate writes, “The Universal Call to Holiness and the Church’s insistence upon the permanence of human dignity seem to undercut everything Aquinas is teaching. It seems to me that soldiers and police are operating according to three concepts that have been abandoned by the Church–one, that the call to holiness only applies to clergy, two, that human beings can lose their human dignity, and three, that the deliberate killing of a sinner is therefore licit.”
St. Thomas is not arguing on the ground that the call to holiness applies only to clergy. He is arguing on the ground that a priest is a minister of the altar, i.e. he acts, daily, in the person of Christ. He is ordained and consecrated to Christ, and empowered to act in Christ’s name, in a way laypersons are not.
He writes that ministers should imitate their master. But we are all to imitate our master.
Nate writes, “… the Church’s unwavering teaching that the deliberate choice to take a human life always constitutes murder.”
Can you show us a magisterial source which says what you’re claiming here?
There are many, but this is a good summary:
Intentional homicide: 2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful . . . 2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death . . . Unintentional killing is not morally imputable.
Nate writes, “Intentional homicide: 2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful . . . 2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death . . . Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. ”
Section 2261 explains what is prohibited by the fifth commandment’s prohibition of deliberate killing: “Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: ‘Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.’”
Further, 2267 says “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty”. Since the death penalty is deliberate killing, obviously not all deliberate killing is forbidden. Two things distinguish the death penalty from the kind of killing that is forbidden by the fifth commandment: (1) that the person being killed is not innocent; and (2) that the killing is being done by the state, which is authorized by God to punish the guilty, and not by an individual of his own volition.
Your mistake is in taking 2268 to mean that killing is *instrinsically* — i.e. always and everywhere — evil. You are therefore puzzled when Aquinas or the Magisterium seems to say that deliberate killing is sometimes OK. It seems a contradiction: How can it be sometimes OK when it’s always and everywhere evil? But the Church has *never* taught that killing is intrinsically evil.
If it were intrinsically evil, then God is ordering people to commit intrinsically evil acts, over and over, in the Old Testament, when he orders the Chosen People to go to war and slay their enemies. But in fact, killing is, in a sense, like sex: Though it can be sinful, neither is intrinsically evil. God authorizes it in some circumstances and forbids it in others. In those circumstances in which it is authorized by God, it is not sinful.
The circumstances in which it is forbidden are those in which it is undertaken by an individual of his own volition, against someone whom he is not authorized to kill either by God or by the state. This is the Church’s clear and constant teaching.
Nate writes, “… for some very very strange reason, the Church inexplicably does not apply this teaching to soldiers. Soldiers and agents of the state are except from the fifth commandment. I have never seen it explained how this can be so, other than a throw-away paragraph by Thomas Aquinas to explain why public authorities may kill, but not private citizens…”
St. Thomas explains it this way:
“It does not belong to a private person to start a war, for he can prosecute his claim in the court of his superior. … But since the care of the commonwealth is entrusted to princes, to them belongs the protection of the common weal of the city, kingdom, or province subject to them. And as they lawfully defend it with the material sword against inward disturbances by punishing male-factors, so it belongs to them also to protect the commonwealth from enemies without by the sword of war.”
“To the objection from the text that “all that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” it is to be said, as Augustine says, that “he takes the sword, who without either command or grant of any superior or lawful authority, arms himself to shed the blood of another.” But he who uses the sword by the authority of a prince or judge (if he is a private person), or out of zeal for justice, and by the authority of God (if he is a public person), does not take the sword of himself, but uses it as committed to him by another.”
http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/130.html
The last sentence is the key: A soldier or executioner is not acting on his own behalf, but is acting by the authority of the government, which in turn derives its authority from God, for the very purpose of punishing wrongdoers under its authority, as well as defending its citizens against outside aggressors. “4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Rom. 13:4.)
If the government were to command its soldiers to rape and pillage, the soldiers would not say, “Well, I’m acting on their behalf, not my own, so I’m guiltless. Just following orders, you know?”
It is implicit within Aquinas’ argument that sinners may be directly and intentionally killed for the common good. And that’s the big difference between his argument and the Church’s current teaching–that you can ever directly and intentionally kill a human being.
Nate writes, “If the government were to command its soldiers to rape and pillage, the soldiers would not say, ‘Well, I’m acting on their behalf, not my own, so I’m guiltless. Just following orders, you know?’”
That’s because raping and pillaging are not things that governments are authorized by God to do. But they are authorized to make war and to put criminals to death under certain circumstances.
Kyle writes, “I have for some time held the position that the criteria of just war theory cannot knowingly be met, but I’ve lately come to the conclusion that there can be no just war. There never has been a war that was just, and there never will be. War cannot be just, even if it can be justified.”
“Justify” means “to show that something is just”. So you’re saying that war cannot be just, even if it’s been shown to be just. That’s a contradiction.
I’ve been accused and guilty of worse things than contradiction, but in this case, I clearly mean by “justify” something other than “to show something is just,” as what I say rules out that definition.
Kyle writes, “I’ve been accused and guilty of worse things than contradiction, but in this case, I clearly mean by “justify” something other than “to show something is just,” as what I say rules out that definition.”
In that case, can you tell me what definition you’re using? I honestly don’t know of any other. Definitions may be phrased in other words, but as far as I know they all boil down to demonstrating that something is just.
It can also mean “to show something as reasonable” or be used as a synonym for the verb “excuse.”
The idea is that war can only be justified in terms of self-defense (or in limited circumstances, in the defense of others).
In any case, I really like the idea that there is no such thing as a just war, only justified war. I’m going to steal that from you. I hope you don’t mind. :D
I stole it from Caputo. He probably got it from someone else. So steal away!
Nate writes, “He writes that ministers should imitate their master. But we are all to imitate our master.”
But (as I said) we are not all ministers of the altar, authorized to offer sacrifice in the very person of Christ.
Kyle writes, “It can also mean “to show something as reasonable” or be used as a synonym for the verb “excuse.”’
To make sure I understand your post, may I ask which of those two meanings you intended?
It would seem to me that participation in war in order to oppose an evil judged to be greater than that war would morally justified if, and only if, your choosing to wage war would ensure the end toward which you are making that choice. I.e. your participation must, in-and-of-itself, bring about the desired end. Otherwise, you are just adding your small contribution to an evil undertaking and are personally culpable for have violated the commandment: Resist not evil.
It does not seem that Jesus condemned soldiering as a career. He performed miracles for Roman soldiers, and praised them, without telling them to give up their professions. Similarly, John the Baptist did not tell a soldier who came to him to renounce his career. Just food for thought. Obviously war should only be a last resort and we ought not to be gleeful about it.
I think we should always keep before ourselves the horror of war, even in ‘humanitarian’ ones. It pains me that people are so enthusiastic about how just the war in Libya is, since we are protecting innocents. But how many in the Libyan army that are killed by NATO jets are guilty? I’m sure most of them are just regular men seeking to make a living. There are moral contradictions even in a just war, but sadly in this fallen world pacifism is not an option.
Pacifism is an option. It is an option that I, and many others, have taken. What is NOT an option is murdering your neighbor in protection of: your wealth, your pride, or even your (brief) mortal existence. Where am I wrong?
Rodak writes, “Pacifism is an option. It is an option that I, and many others, have taken. What is NOT an option is murdering your neighbor in protection of: your wealth, your pride, or even your (brief) mortal existence. Where am I wrong?”
I think being a pacifist is fine, if you want to make the decision never to commit violence as an aggressor, or to defend yourself with violence. But as Catholics we do believe there is a duty to protect others, such as our wives and children, from violent attack. If there’s a way to do that non-violently that’s great, but often, by its nature, repelling a violent attack requires violence.
I have pondered pacifism. Is Christ dying on the Cross pacifism? I hope I can put this clearly. Pacifism is an act of love but sacrificial love seems to be a step beyond pacifism. I am not talking about sacrificial love with a gun in hand, or like St Peter picking up a sword to fight, yet, when he was confronted about being a follower of Christ, he denied it.
Pope Pius XII in WWII took a pacifist approach outwardly but according to Catholic research he secretly helped others to avoid being imprisoned by the nazis–I don’t know how many.
What would have happened if he had taken Christ’s approach and offered himself as a sacrifice? What would have happened if he had gone directly to one of the major battles and stood at the front pleading for the killing to stop? In my opinion, this is what the vicor of Christ would naturally do. St. Maximilian Kolbe did this and I would expect the leader of our Church to do the same.
We can justify, I mean rationalize, war if we are fearful and self protective. Then history repeats itself infinitely.
The movie Jeaux Noel depicted an actual event in which allied Catholics and German Catholics were killing each other at one of the fronts. When Christmas came they somehow were able to stop the killing to have Mass and Communion together. It was powerful. I don’t want to give away the rest of it.
War is not a part of the kingdom of God.
John 18:36 – Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”