| IAN's Current
Events |
 |
|
Is it true that, "All's fair in war?"
When examining
whether a specific war is considered the right thing
to do (often referred to as a "just war")
it is valuable to step back and consider exactly what
makes any war just. This topic has been explored in
depth since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274).
Before
examining his criteria for a just war, what are yours?
Is there any justifiable reason for going to war?
Also, within war, are there unjustifiable actions
or is anything permitted? Just War Theory was initially
posited by quinas and has since been examined throughout
present day. In its basic form, Just War Theory holds
five conditions that must be met in order for a war
to be considered just:
•
having a just cause,
•
declared by a proper authority,
•
carried out for the right intentions,
•
there should be a reasonable chance of success, and
•
that the end (goal) is proportional to the means (methods)
used.
In your
opinion, are these conditions sufficient? Are there
concepts in these criteria that seem debatable such
as,
•
who determines if a cause is just?
•
who is considered a proper authority to declare such
a serious activity?
•
how do we determine if intentions are "right"?
•
how do we determine what the chance of success is?
What is reasonable? Why is this a criterion to begin
with?
Just
War Theory also gives criteria for right actions in
war i.e. the rules of war. There are three main principles
that guide this:
•
proportionality the attack should be proportional
to the need.
•
discrimination the acts of war should be aimed at
the opposing soldiers and not at civilians.
•
use of fair means: there are certain weapons that
are considered unethical to use in war such as bullets
that flatten when they hit their target and certain
types of gas. Also, it demands that soldiers honor
the "surrender" flag (i.e. and not kill
after the surrender) as well as having rules of how
to treat prisoners of war.
Do you
think it makes sense to apply ethics to war? Is it
realistic? Could you trust your enemy to follow the
same rules? If not, how would this affect your view
of ethics in war? (When you think about these issues,
try to imagine that you are in an actual battlefield
situation and what might be going through your head
at the time.)
In looking
at what it means for a war to be just, we must also
consider the Hindu ethic of ahimsa, or, nonviolence.
Gandhi combated the forceful British through such
passive methods as boycott, peaceful protest, and
fasting. Gandhi believed that nonviolent "conversion"
was much more powerful than "coercion" of
war. Martin Luther King Jr. used similar nonviolent
methods to defend human rights.
Could
this method be more effective than the violence of
war? Some argue that "violence breeds violence"
would practicing ahimsa avoid this problem?
If you
have some idea that you want to share, please let
us know by contacting Jack
Bowen.
