AO1: Christian Just War Theory
- Christian Just War Theory developed to reconcile Jesus’ apparent pacifism with the realities of political life.
- Jesus taught non-violence, such as “turn the other cheek,” and early Christians were often pacifists.
- However, after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire in 313 AD, thinkers like Augustine of Hippo argued that while individuals should avoid violence, the state could justly use force to punish wrongdoing, drawing on Romans 13.
- Later, Thomas Aquinas systematised this into Just War Theory.
- The theory includes three parts.
- Jus ad bellum concerns when war can be started, requiring legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportionality, and a reasonable chance of success.
- Jus in bello governs conduct in war, requiring proportional force and discrimination between combatants and civilians.
- Jus post bellum concerns justice after war, including fair punishment and proportional compensation.
- The theory has been applied to real conflicts.
- World War II is often seen as just due to resisting Hitler, while the Crusades and Iraq War are often judged unjust due to poor intentions or disproportionate methods.
- Nuclear war raises special problems.
- Weapons like those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki appear to violate discrimination and proportionality.
- Deterrence, such as mutually assured destruction, aims to prevent war but risks catastrophic mistakes and cannot fully meet Just War criteria.
AO1: Pacifism
- Pacifism is the view that war and violence are morally wrong, though it exists in different forms.
- Absolute pacifism holds that all violence is wrong in every circumstance.
- This is often based on religious teachings such as Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek,” and the belief that all human life is sacred.
- Relative or selective pacifism accepts that while war is generally wrong, some conflicts may be justified.
- However, it argues that modern warfare rarely meets these conditions due to its destructive nature.
- Some also adopt nuclear pacifism, which specifically rejects nuclear weapons because of their indiscriminate and catastrophic effects, making them morally unacceptable under any circumstances.
- Pacifism has been promoted through movements and activism.
- Groups such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) have opposed nuclear weapons and advocated peaceful solutions to conflict.
- Bertrand Russell was a lifelong pacifist who consistently opposed war and militarism.
- He lost his lectureship at Cambridge during World War I due to his anti-war activism and was later imprisoned for his writings.
- In his later life, he also campaigned against nuclear weapons and strongly opposed the Vietnam War, helping to organise the Russell Tribunal to investigate alleged war crimes.
- His ethical reasoning was influenced by a form of utilitarian thinking, arguing that modern warfare causes such widespread suffering and risk of human extinction that it cannot be morally justified.
- Pacifist movements aim to influence governments and public opinion, encouraging disarmament and non-violent conflict resolution.
- They show that pacifism is not only a theoretical position but also a practical and political stance seeking global peace.
AO2: Evaluating Just war theory
- Just War Theory aims to ensure war is morally justified through criteria such as jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum.
- It appears convincing in cases like World War II, where fighting Hitler is often seen as necessary to prevent greater evil.
- Since Hitler could not be reasoned with and aimed at large-scale destruction, war seems justified as the lesser evil.
- This suggests Just War Theory provides a realistic framework for judging when violence is morally necessary.
Counter
- Absolute pacifists such as Mahatma Gandhi reject this, arguing that violence is always wrong.
- Gandhi believed non-violence could transform even extreme injustice, while Martin Luther King Jr. argued that “hate cannot drive out hate.”
- On this view, using violence only perpetuates cycles of harm and undermines moral integrity.
Evaluation
- However, absolute pacifism appears unrealistic in extreme cases like Nazi Germany.
- Non-violence was effective against governments concerned with public opinion, but not against regimes committed to extermination.
- As Peter Singer argues, refusing violence in such cases may allow greater harm to occur.
- Just War Theory better reflects moral complexity by permitting force when necessary to prevent injustice.
- While not perfect, it offers a practical and morally grounded approach, whereas absolute pacifism risks enabling evil.
AO2: Just war theory vs pacifism
- Jesus’ teachings appear to support absolute pacifism.
- Commands such as “turn the other cheek” and rejecting violence even in self-defence suggest that violence is always wrong.
- Early Christians often followed this, accepting martyrdom rather than fighting back.
- This implies that war cannot be justified within Christian ethics.
Counter
- However, Augustine of Hippo argues these teachings apply to individuals, not states.
- He draws on Romans 13 to claim that governments have authority to use force to punish wrongdoing.
- This led to Just War Theory, where war can be justified if it meets certain moral conditions.
- The state therefore has a different moral role from individuals.
Evaluation
- Augustine’s view is more convincing because Jesus’ teachings are primarily directed at personal conduct.
- Statements like “my kingdom is not of this world” suggest he was not addressing political ethics.
- Applying individual morality directly to states ignores the responsibility of governments to protect citizens.
- Just War Theory allows this while still limiting violence through moral rules.
- Therefore, it offers a more coherent interpretation of Christianity than absolute pacifism, which struggles to address real political responsibilities.
AO2: Evaluating types of pacifism
- Absolute pacifism appears flawed, but other forms may be more convincing.
- Nuclear pacifism argues that nuclear weapons are always wrong due to their indiscriminate destruction.
- Relative pacifism allows war only in extreme cases, such as self-defence.
- Bertrand Russell supported this view, accepting war against Hitler as necessary.
Counter
- However, critics argue relative pacifism is not clearly different from Just War Theory.
- Both allow war under certain conditions, so relative pacifism may simply restate Just War principles.
- Additionally, Just War Theory has been misused historically, such as during the Crusades, where religious authorities justified unjust wars.
- This shows its criteria can be applied subjectively.
Evaluation
- Despite this, relative pacifism may still be preferable because it places stronger emphasis on restraint.
- Modern institutions like the United Nations reflect this approach, allowing war mainly for self-defence.
- This reduces the risk of ideological or religious misuse seen in earlier Just War applications.
- While Just War Theory was a useful development, its reliance on subjective judgement weakens it.
- Relative pacifism, especially in a secular context, offers a more cautious and effective framework for maintaining peace.