Agustin, Alyssa Donelle, Adea, 140093, Section T

Contact: 09088636963; alyssa.agustin@obf.ateneo.edu

Subject: Is the Just War Theory Just?

Introduction

The Institute for Economics and Peace published a list of peaceful countries last

August 2014; These were Switzerland, Japan, Qatar, Mauritius, Uruguay, Chile, Botswana,

Costa Rica, Vietnam, Panama and Brazil.1 However, considering the rapid growth of conflict

since 2007, and the number of years that have passed since the mentioned study, it would not

be surprising if the list had shortened even further. Some wars last for several decades, even

centuries, and it would be inevitable to wonder what reasons would push people to sustain

such wars. A popular inquiry is whether these wars are justifiable; could wars exist for a good

end, or could they never be equated to any good? Take for example the previous wars that

have occurred in the name of freedom from oppression: the American revolutionists versus

the British soldiers when America was still a British colony, the Bangladesh War of

Independence, the Haitian Revolution inspired by the French Revolution against its

oppressive government, and many more. Even wars involving terrorists may possibly have a

good end, such that the defeat of terrorism by means of war would mean peace to the plagued

country.

Several people from different walks of life have extended their own opinions on just

and unjust wars. Defencists argue the need to engage in war as an act of defense when there

is a threat, such as facing a country what initiated a violent war, overthrowing a cruel and

oppressive government, and protecting its people against an invader; the Realists belief is

similar to those of the Defencists, but that war is said to be just when your moral standards

call for it (Orend, 2009). For instance, fighting against the US government after it overthrew

1
"Global Peace Index". The Institute of Economics and Peace on 2014-02-13.

1
your previous dictator, but then proceeded to use Phosphorus shells on civilian targets. As a

Realist soldier ordered by the US government to participate in this war, you would call for

the right to violate orders to avoid engaging in such atrocity. However, the Pacifist takes on a

unique stand, insisting that there shall be no justifiable means to engage in war. This paper is

an attempt to describe what a just war is based on several scholars of the Just War theory and

the Philosophy of War, and the Christian views on Ethics. Additionally, it aims to evaluate

certain historical wars based on these descriptions.

The Just War Theory

The Just War theory is a triad of philosophies of three ancient war ethics

pioneers.2Marcus Tullius Cicero, a roman politician and lawyer, is considered the first to

formulate a Just War theory, which was then continued by St. Augustine, although some

scholars believe that Aristotles theory on justice as reciprocity had a significant impact on St.

Augustines writings (Neste, 2006). The theory was then further developed by St. Thomas

Aquinas, who, from the original criteria laid down by Cicero, formulated three main

standards for a just war found in his Summa Theologica question 40, article 1.

The Classical Just War Theory

Ciceros Just War Theory. Four centuries before St. Augustine, Cicero presented a

clear theory on ethical wars. His ideologies were informed by his political experiences from

the ranks of the Roman cursus honorum as a consul, senatorship and governorship. Cicero

not only witnessed the transition of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, but he

participated in various military actions as well, from civil wars to threats of invasion to

international conquests 3(Haskell, 1946).

2
Neste, B. V. (2006). Cicero and St. Augustine's Just War Theory: Classical Influences on a Christian Idea.

3
Haskell, H.J.: (1946) This was Cicero, Fawcett publications, Inc. Greenwich, Conn. USA
2
 In the book On the Commonwealth (de res publica), Cicero states that the conflict

should first be addressed by diplomatic discussion, and that war should be the last resort.

Honor and safety were also said to be the only two reasons for a war to be just, and that war

itself is not honorable, and should be avoided. 4He also presents an outline of criteria for just

wars in the Book III of On the Commonwealth, namely: (a) a proper motive; (b) due

announcement and proclamation; (c) demand of restitution (Ciceros ideas are mainly

political in nature, implying that the government, or the commonwealth, had the just reason

to go to war for two main purposes; that is: (a) to right a wrong that has been perpetrated

against it by another state, or vengeance; and (b) to protect itself from destruction, or self-

defense (Neste, 2006).

Aristotles Theory of Justice. Ciceros theory being secular in nature provides enough

room for evaluation by other religions. Its value on the state as a responsible agent in war and

conflict may further be developed since it is centered on justice, which comes from social

discourse. Thus, the definition of justice according to Cicero may appear vague. This is

where Aristotles theory of justice comes into play. According to Aristotle, justice differs in

form depending on the situation. This is a far cry from Platos assertion that justice remains

the same across all situations. 5He divides the notion of justice into two, the first being the

complete justice, defined as the virtue of members of a community or the goodness of life of

an entire community as a whole, and the second being partial justice, which conforms to how

we define justice today in different cases and situations (Johnston, 2011) . In simpler words,

in the Philippine context, complete justice may not necessarily apply to the entire country

when once puts into account all the corruption, mischief, and poverty. On the other hand, the

4
Neste, B. V. (2006). Cicero and St. Augustine's Just War Theory: Classical Influences on a Christian Idea.
5
A Brief History of Justice, First Edition. David Johnston. 2011 David Johnston. Published 2011 by John Wiley
& Sons Ltd
3
punishment of policemen who had been involved in minority killings may be considered as

something close to partial justice.

Aristotle further divided partial justice into two, namely distributive and corrective

justice. These two concepts refer to the fairness in distribution of goods among all members,

and the fairness in exacting punishment or reward to whatever or whomever it is due. One

may say that Aristotles concept of justice may be equated to fairness; however, it is not the

same as equality. Aristotles justice takes into consideration to the proper form, context, and

intensity of exacting justice. He calls for moderation or due retribution, in the same way he

calls for moderation in engaging in war. By dissecting Aristotles principles of justice, one

may see its relevance to Ciceros Theory of Just War, wherein a war for restitution is just and

acceptable. Both Aristotle and Cicero agree that war should come as a last resort as well

(Johnston 2011). Aristotle (1996) states that:

Men may wage war, first, to provide against their own enslavement; second, to

obtain empire for the good of the governed; and third, to establish mastery only

over those who deserve to be slaves. 6

Jus ad Bellum. The principles of justice in war based on ancient Greek ideologies

were condensed into three main parts: (a) Jus ad Bellum, which talks about the conditions to

be considered when engaging in war in the first place; (b) Jus in bello, which is concerned

about conduct during war; and (c) jus post bellum; which stresses the termination and peace

agreements at the end of the war. In jus ad bellum, seven (7) conditions must be fulfilled by

the state or the political community: (a) Just cause; (b) Right intention; (c) Proper authority

6
Aristotle. (1996) The Politics. In Aristotle: The Politics and the Constitution of Athens, translated and edited
by S. Everson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
4
and public declaration; (d) Last resort; (e) Probability of Success; (f) Proportionality (Orend,

2009)

Jus in bello. The manner of which one must engage in war is presented into three

parts.

Discrimination/ immunity of innocents. This principle is considered the key feature of

war ethics. It states that only those actively participating in war may be considered as a target

directly and intentionally. The words direct and intentional are key to determining which are

casualties and which are not. 7To the Greeks, what are sacred, such as things, places and

times dear to the gods and the royalties, are to be immune from the warfare. In the modern

sense, these are the innocent people and the VIP (Driscoll, 2015).

Proportionality of acts within war. This is different from the proportionality principle

of jus ad bellum. More like a cost-benefit analysis of the good and evil of the war. If the cost

of getting something good through warfare is not in proportion to the evil or destruction it

would bring, then the war is disproportionate and would not be permitted. (Orend, 2009).

Double effect. Double effect simply states that things may not go according to plan

when it comes to warfare, and that it may result to unexpected consequences. This concept

borrowed from Medieval Christianity states that the spillage of war, or the injury or death

of innocents, may be excused if it was unintentional (Orend, 2009). This principle is highly

contested since there have been many wars where the death of innocents was not intended but

still foreseen; take nuclear bombings for example. Countless innocent people die from such

attacks, and although the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were meant to take vengeance on

the government, it is easy to predict the massive destruction it brought on innocent lives. Is

5
resorting to violence despite knowledge of massive, unintentional destruction still considered

unintentional? Is it still accepted as just?

Jus post bellum. The Greco-Roman concept of just cause for warfare are similar in

that Cicero and Aristotle agree that man, or the ideal state according to Cicero, is given

reason to make peace, and that violence is supposed to be used only upon the failure of

reason to restore peace. This may seem acceptable across all cultures; however, Cicero

believed that warring to revenge a dishonor done to a state is justifiable. Christianity rejects

this idea, stating that war should only be for the defense and restoration of peace (Holmes,

2004). Aristotle thought the same way and limited the use of war to what is necessary for

peace. Thus, it is possible for one to think of let go [of an injustice done] and move on if it

means not sparking another conflict. In this case, I would agree more with Cicero, who

claims that wrongdoing must be avenged, regardless of the manner.

Incorporation of Roman Christianity

The Grecian standards presented above seem to suggest that ancient wars were

considered as a standardized political activity, wherein parties evaluate several things before

executing. It seems that wars were like a game, with its set of rules and consequences, rather

than a life-changing event. Unlike how we may imagine wars, where warriors were full of

passion and rage and indignation, Greco-Roman warriors carefully plan out their activities,

and would decide not to engage in war if they are bound to lose, even though it means giving

up their ideologies. This may be because wars during those times were primarily centered on

imperialism. In reality, this idea of fair-fighting is also inapplicable, for when you find

yourself under attack by a kidnapper or a pervert, you would have no time (or will) to think

about how to fight your assailant fairly. Thus, this concept of war may not fully be accepted

by our present context and culture. Additionally, in contrast to Ciceros concept of justice,

6
which is centered on natural law and human reason that allows for our evaluation of a

feasible war based on his criteria, the Christian concept of justice is centered on love, and

mercy, even for our enemies. As we will see later on, this ideology stems from several

biblical teachings, particularly by Jesus Christ.

St. Augustines Just War Theory. People often confuse St. Augustine as the father of

the Just War Theory; however, as mentioned above, the theory was originally a Greek

concept by Cicero. St. Augustine, rather, bridged the gap between Roman and European

ethics. His works were nonetheless greatly influenced by Cicero, as Neste (2006) had

contended. St. Augustine states in his Confessionem, III.iv.7, as translated by J. Pilkington:

And at that time during the regular course of study I came across a certain book by
Cicero, whose tongue all men admire, but not his heart. But that book contains his
exhortation to philosophy, and it is called Hortensius. That very book changed my
affections, and to you, Lord, it changed my prayers, and it caused me to have other
purposes and desires. 8

However, he criticized Ciceros thinking of an ideal state that is consisted of rational

individuals. He acknowledged that humans reasoning may sometimes be overpowered by

excitement during war, which may taint our ability to evaluate the situation. He also pointed

out that ruling out God in warfare would make it unjust; thus, a soldier must repent before

going to war, knowing that his moral reasoning may be clouded by the acts of war (Holmes,

2004).

Holmes account of St. Augustine's stand on Just War implies that the latter still

accepts warfare as a means to achieve peace. Furthermore, he states that St. Augustine

considered warfare not as a choice but a necessity in restoring order in a fallen, violence-

filled world and that captives and enemies upon surrender must be shown mercy. Thus, the

teaching on the spirit of the peacemaker is maintained. St. Augustine also stated that "the

8
Augustin, Conf. 3.4.7.
7
natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and

counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.9

St. Thomas Aquinas Revision. The concept of the Just War is further developed and

Christianized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, II. Part 2, article 1: Whether

it is always sinful to wage war. St. Thomas Aquinas defended three necessary conditions in

order for wars to just: (a) Authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be

waged. In the first point, St. Thomas Aquinas asserts that warfare is a political activity, and is

not the business of a private individual. It is stated that it is the appointed task of the

authority, in our case the government, to gather people together and declare war against

external forces, as it is their task to deal with internal conflict within the state. (b) Just Cause.

In the second point, it is stated that a war is just if the targeted state deserves to be attacked or

punished for a wrongdoing. (c) Rightful intention. Lastly, a war is just if its intention is good,

and if it aims to avoid or remove evil. I interpret this a war which is waged in order to protect

the people from invasion by tyrants, or in order to oust an oppressive ruler.10

St. Thomas Aquinas also provided explanations on the participation of lays and

bishops in war, however these may not be under the scope of this paper anymore. Ultimately,

it seems that he believed in conditions that make a war just. Hence the Just war Theory is

supported.

Reflections

Probably the first biblical basis a pacifist may refer to would be the sixth

commandment, Thou shall not kill. There is, however, a contradiction since killing in self-

9
Contra Faust. xxii, 75
10
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, Q. 40, Art. 1

8
defense is not considered a crime. Specific examples are discussed later in this section, after a

brief analysis of the Old and New Testament in terms of warfare.

Old vs. New Testament

The context of the Old Testament is the Israel peoples escape from Egypt and their

journey to Canaan. During this time, military activities, although their concept of military is

not yet as technological as our modern concept, are prominent. This is evident is the presence

of empires, such as the growing power of Egypt. God is also presented in the Old Testament

as an angry God who uses deathly force to strengthen the foundation of His people, and to

exact punishment upon evildoers (take, for example, the wiping of humanity). Certain verses

from the bible seem to picture similar forceful and punitive actions as well. Roman 13:1-7

shows that the use of arms is authorized for civil officials in as much as they are divinely

commissioned to restrain and punish evildoers (Holmes, 2004). There are also some

contradicting verses which seems to condemn warfare, such as that of Ps 46:120, which calls

upon the God who ceases wars and destroys weaponry; or the verse in Genesis 9:6, which

says whoever sheds the blood of man, by man, shall his blood be shed. However, other

verses do not seem to condemn warfare, but instead limits its use to defense. For example, the

Israelites were instructed to limit their use of violence during their venture to Canaan in

Deuteronomy. 2. David, because he is a man of war, was not allowed to participate in the

building of Gods temple because he is a man of war. There are several other verses with

similar meaning found in the bible; however, I believe there was no indication of direct

condemnation against David.

The New Testament, on the other hand, does not directly address the use of general

warfare as does the Old Testament. The New Testament instead addressed individual

participation to wars, specifically that of churches and Christians. in Jn. 18:1-11, Jesus told

9
Peter to put away [his] sword. In Mt. 5:38-48, He taught His disciples not to resist evil. In

support to this, Pacifists would say that the New Testament teaches Christians to not fight in

war, but to endure it. However, it seems that there are no direct references regarding the state

or governments use of force, which mirrors what is said in the Old Testament. If compared

to Western or Greek concept of war, the state is also the one that is appointed with warfare

authority, not civilians. This is why some Christians who do acknowledge the governments

right to warfare would question whether they should or should not participate. Given the

differences between the two Testaments, and the question posed earlier, I have built my case

on how we may reconcile the Old and New Testament.

From both the Old and New Testament, we may deduce that warfare is to be limited

to defensive, protective, and justice-exacting purposes, and that it is entrusted to the

government or state. This idea is similar to those of Cicero and Aristotle; However, there is

change in that, contrary to Western ideas, warfare should not be done for revenge, but only

for necessities in restoring or maintaining peace and order in a state. Aggression is therefore

ruled out, and is replaced by love and mercy. The New Testament talks about Jesus Himself

instilling unto us the virtues of love and mercy; hence we can safely say that the gentler

New Testament does not aim to oust the authoritative teachings of the Old Testament, but

to confirm the underlying loving force of the latter that we may not easily see because of the

several verses about punishment and justice. In the end, we see that love and mercy still

needs action, or force, to protect the innocent and to repel aggression or attacks.

Chrisitians Participation in War

I hope I do not sound too aggressive when I say that Christians might also have a

place in warfare. This is because we are not just Christians, we are also Citizens, friends,

family, brother, sister, etc. This is supported by Just War Theorists, who according to Holmes
10
(2004), assert the inseparability of moral/spiritual and political beliefs. I believe I have also

heard or read from somewhere that the church and state are not separate forces, but work

together to instill peace and order in their communities. Therefore, we have the responsibility,

if we do agree with the Just War Theory - and I do - to participate in morally related

governmental activities. If the situation calls for it, I would willingly volunteer for military

service if it means protecting my loved ones. Of course, that would also mean that I am

volunteering on their behalf, and that I will violently object if my loved ones volunteer as

well. Knowing them, they would not allow my participation in wars; however, it is not

impossible that time will come, a country would need all the help it can get to protect itself.

In my opinion, the state which started the war should be held more responsible for the

destruction, while the state which retaliated in self-defense, protection and with mercy to its

captives, is only acting appropriately. Until all states are able to use verbal discussion without

resorting to violence, the Christian Just War Theory remains appropriate.

I had to come up with a mind experiment in order to solidify my argument in support

to the Just War Theory. This is aided by the movie I have just recently watched for

Philosophy class, which is entitled Hacksaw Ridge.

Suppose that a country in under attack, and its government has solicited the aid of its

people by recruiting new soldiers. You may find yourself wondering if you will ever be able

to live in peace knowing that other men are dying for your country and your people. You

know that there is nothing that may stop your enemy, and practically, there is nothing that

may stop the war now. You decide to enlist as a medic, and swore never to touch any form of

weapon in the process, this way you will be able to help your country without taking lives.

During the war, you watch feeling helplessly, as your friends being attacked, yet you have no

way of getting rid of their attackers as you had no weapon. Eventually you find yourself at

11
point blank with an enemys gun. To this situation, a quote from Gary DeMar (2016) may be

most appropriate:

How self-giving should Christians in Paris or San Bernardino have been when
confronted with the worst kind of human evil? Would it have been more self-giving
by dying at the hands of murderers or would it have been more loving to stop those
who were pumping bullets into people?11

In the end, a person may find himself having the need to hold a weapon to save the

lives of those he holds dear. The same may apply to the government, mercenaries, patriots,

and even heroes, who put themselves amidst threat and became threat for the sake of an entire

community. I hope I am not misunderstood. I do not think that war is a noble thing to do, but

risking your life for other could be. On the other hand, taking a persons life is indeed a sin,

but in these times, it has become inevitable. Persuading your enemies to cease fire is almost

impossible, especially when you are dealing with enemies today terrorism, invaders, etc.

One cannot fight swords with a pen - Even Jose Rizals pen caused weapons to be fired, and

he was fully aware of this especially when see people dying. In the end, however, the goal

of war should not be violence, but peace. Once surrender has been declared and peace

restored, there is no longer a need for more warfare. Captives should be treated with true

justice and not torture or slavery. The injured should be given aid. The surrendering party and

the defending party should make peace. This is why we have peace treaties to declare an end

to a war, or the uninformed will continue to fight.

Unjust Wars

When you see people dropping their guns, you see their awareness in the purpose of

war. It is rare to hear of wars in the past which have no purpose, as according to St.

Augustine, bad things are done to achieve a good, and that bad deeds are not done for the

sake of badness. Thus, a just war is bound to end once its goal is achieved. In cases where the

11
DeMar, G. (2016, January 12). Jesus, Guns, and Self-Defense: What Does the Bible Say
12
war continues, despite one partys raising the white flag, a good is still achieved it may be

pleasure, profit, slavery, etc. but this sort of war is not under the Just War Theory. This war

is pure evil, since it does meet the given requirements of right intention and just cause.

Neither does it aim to provide safety and order for a state, but the exact opposite. These kinds

of war are unjust should not be pardoned by any theory.

13
 References

Augustine. (2009). Contra Faustum Machineum (K. Knight, R. Stothert, Trans.) New
Advent.

Augustin. (1956). The Confessions of St. Augustin. (J. G. Pilkington, Trans.) Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans. Retrieved from <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.html>

Aquinas, Thomas. (1947). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province,
Trans. Benziger Bros. ed.) Westminster: Christian Classics, 1947. Internet resource. 8
Oct. 2013.

Aristotle. (1996) The Politics. Aristotle: The Politics and the Constitution of Athens (S.
Everson, Trans.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

B. V. (2006). Cicero and St. Augustine's Just War Theory: Classical Influences on a
Christian Idea [dissertation].

DeMar, G. (2016, January 12). Jesus, Guns, and Self-Defense: What Does the Bible Say?
Retrieved October 09, 2017, from https://americanvision.org/12889/jesus-guns-and-
self-defense-what-does-the-bible-say/

Global Peace Index. Economics and Peace. Archived from The Institute of Economics and
Peace on 2014-02-13.

Haskell, H.J.: (1946) This was Cicero, Fawcett publications, Inc. Greenwich, Conn.
USA

Holmes, A. (2004, May 7). The Just War.

Johnston, D. (2011). A Brief History of Justice. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Neste, B. V. (2006). Cicero and St. Augustine's Just War Theory: Classical Influences on a
Christian Idea.

New International Version. Biblica, 2011. BibleGateway.com,

www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/#booklist

O'Driscoll, C. (2015). Rewriting the just war tradition: Just war in classical Greek political
thought and practice. International Studies Quarterly, 59(1), 1-10.

Orend, B. (2009). Ethics of War and Peace.

14
15