Just War Theory and Christianity

[Josh]

I think of it similarly to capital punishment, though usually even far less justifiable:

we must not say, even from this view, that any acts of killing aren’t 'evil' acts. The reason is that in English it’s not certain whether one means by that that the person committing the act is evil or whether the act in itself is evil. It also doesn’t distinguish whether the act is evil in the sense of ‘imperfection’ or positively ‘evil’.
Certainly all killing, even that commanded by God, is evil in the first sense- ‘imperfection’ resulting from the fall.

So, for instance, does someone who kills someone is a war commit an evil action?

In my opinion, yes in one sense (result of the Fall), and no in another (it's not necessarily a morally culpable act).

[krhagan19]

but how far do you take that. Does the Triblinka guard get a pass for killing someone in the service of his country so far is moral culpability?

[yeshuafreak]

War is only necessary in a world like this. Yes, in a perfectly righteous world, there would be no war.

and in all just wars there is this simple fact: more lives would have been killed had we not gone to war than if we would have. If this fact is not true, than it is not a just war. If we end up killing more people than we save than there is something wrong with the mentality of the people at war and/or the people who commanded it. War should be more about saving human life than killing it. This is judaisms sacred Chai- "life."

plus, just wars should be, as Lewis said "be defensive, not imperialistic."

shalom- john

[krhagan19]

Dangerous ground you tread Yeshuafreak, if we use that as our only guiding principle then perhaps very very few wars are justifiable. Its true the Japanese killed a few thousand of our boys in blue at Pearl Harbor. But Hundreds of Thousands more on both sides (million actually for the Japanese) had to die to avenge our honor. What about the European war. Liberty was at Stake, but almost a hundred million people were killed in that conflict. Perhaps the allies should have just lied down and allowed Hitler to take control. It is true he killed a few hundred thousand dissident citizens, mentally ill, and sick people, along with six million jews, however, if we take morality out of the equation as well as a value of liberty might the just thing to do have been to minimize deaths by simply letting Hitler murder those people and take over and have his thousand year Empire. Another note, GOING TO WAR did not stop the Holocaust it was nearly complete by the time we beat Germany! So if the only factor to consider is whether we save more lives than we lose, can you think of any war that is justified?

[Josh]

Does the Triblinka guard get a pass for killing someone in the service of his country so far is moral culpability?

That's why I said it's not necessarily a morally culpible act. That depends on a host of other factors.

[krhagan19]

I like to poke things with sticks. It strikes me that the concept of
"Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success; " This sounds like a great high ground of a nation like the US to hold, we who have truly irristable force unless someone fights using "disproportionate measures." It is very self serving, of course we want that, why? Because anyone who fights America according to the modern rules of war would be soundly whipped by our super advanced technological weaponry. If a small country is in a war with a large one, sometimes "disproportionate means" even terrorism, is necessary to even have a fighting chance. For example the Algerians against the French or the Vietnamese, who had a justifiable desire to self determination, had to use "disproportionate means, because fighting the French (and later the US) with proportionate means would have been suicide. I believe the fundamental question is whether the cause of one side is just or not, after that it is largely semantics. For example, in Vietnam, the US considered the Vietmanese use of feces of spikes to infect American Soldiers feet to be "disproportionate." Yet we found burning thousands of Vietmanese with jellied pyrotechnics to be perfectly justified. YAY NAPALM. When Humans are murdering each other by any means, I find it barbaric, I think it is absurd to try to clean up war by the standards of the first world because it only is self serving. For example, when we attack Al Queda we will shoot a cruise missile from a ship in the Ocean, that is in no danger, into a country and kill a bunch of their operatives while having no risk to ourselves. At least the suicide bombers who give their life for their cause could theoretically be stopped by more vigilant security. I honestly think by and large Al Queda fights as fair as us, just more brutally.

[Josh]

That is an interesting possible hole in Just War theory.

I wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that much of Just War Theory was created in a day and age when there was no super power that could claim Kings X.

However, I've always respected Robert E. Lee for refusing to carry on a disproportionate and bloody guerilla war against the North after the defeat of his armies.

[marcus]

Jan 6, 2010 20:47:57 GMT -8 Josh said:

That's why I said it's not necessarily a morally culpible act. That depends on a host of other factors.

No it doesn't.

You're hanging to a string at this point, aren't you? You know you need to make the jump, and you're almost ready, but your studies in history just keep your grip too tight... ;D

[krhagan19]

I guess my point is I don't think our methods are much more humane or decent than the enemies. We criticize people for guerrilla attacks that are somewhat effective but brutal, then we, as the Christian nation napalm thousands of Vietnamese. "Who would Jesus cremate alive?"

[robin]

"Who would Jesus cremate alive?"

Those in Jerusalem, 69-70AD.

I don't think it tis very important to ask "what would Jesus do?", but rather "what would Jesus have me do". I have to run, but I will tell you that I don't think Jesus wants me to stand by as evil men kill and brutalize innocent people (my neighbors).

[Josh]

Robin, the simulation is over, you can step out of character!!!

Just kidding.

"what would Jesus do?", but rather "what would Jesus have me do".

Actually, I agree with your sentiment here. I started a thread on just that topic a long time ago: WWJD?

[krhagan19]

"I don't think it tis very important to ask "what would Jesus do?", but rather "what would Jesus have me do". I have to run, but I will tell you that I don't think Jesus wants me to stand by as evil men kill and brutalize innocent people (my neighbors)."

This is a good point, yet I think even with your query, Jesus would probably want us to deal with them as humanely as possible. I doubt he would want us to drop jellied petrol on them and have them burn to death en mass. He would not want us to torture people and he certainly would not want us to kill wantonly.

[robin]

I doubt he would want us to drop jellied petrol on them and have them burn to death en mass.

What if the choice is to either kill the enemy of let the enemy kill innocent people? Should we refuse to protect innocent people unless we can do so in only the most humane way possible?

It may not sound very pleasant the way you describe it but lets face it, death almost always tends to be terrible and painful. Incinerating them in a micro second may be far better then dieing of cancer.

You're trying to win an argument by make war sound terrible. Well you right, war is terrible. So what? Prove that its not necessary.

He would not want us to torture people and he certainly would not want us to kill wantonly.

First of all, I don't believe that we are torturing people (water boarding is not torture so far as I see it). Second of all, what proof do you have that our soldiers are killing wantonly? Have you met any of these men, and can you provide names of anyone killing without provocation? If not why don't you stop slandering people who you do not know.

[krhagan19]

Lets take Vietnam as an example. We were protecting no one but an unelected colonial regime from the socialist resistance. Vietman everyone he killed, we killed wantonly because we had no business there. History in general seems to agree Vietnam was a mistake. We napalmed the Vietmanese to kill them to advance of geo social agenda of preventing expansion. SO in that case, I believe everyone we killed in Vietnman died outside of a justified war.

[robin]

Only protecting an unelected regime huh? Tell that to the thousands of South Vietnamese who were brutally murdered after the Liberals and progressives in this country forced a pre-mature with drawl.

By the way, it was not a socialist resistance. It was an attempted communist take over.

SO in that case, I believe everyone we killed in Vietnam died outside of a justified war.

What was unjustified is how liberals like yourself encouraged the enemy to fight on. (Walter Cronkite, John Kerry, Jane Fonda)

[krhagan19]

Robin but it was still a totally arbitrary action. There are hundreds of tin pot dictators around the world, incredibly unjust ones that we do business with and do not attempt to overthrow. Look at our allies Saudi Arabia. Look up "womens rights" and Saudi Arabia. They has such progressive laws as a woman must have a male witness on their side to have rape be investigated. Wonderful people we deal with. Why do you not call for Obama, or George the II for that matter to invade Saudi Arabia for their crimes against their own citizenry?

[robin]

It seems as if I've heard this argument a million times before and it has never made any sense to me. So what you are saying is either we fight and go to war with every country who does not share our values, and if we're not able to do that we should not oppose any evil dictators, or those countries and groups that intend to harm us? How does that make any sense?

And why do you keep bouncing around and changing the subject? I have been asking direct questions and you refuse to answer them. Instead you just move on to you next liberal talking point. Please answer my questions.

I asked "What if the choice is to either kill the enemy of let the enemy kill innocent people? Should we refuse to protect innocent people unless we can do so in only the most humane way possible?"

"You're trying to win an argument by makeing war sound terrible. Well you right, war is terrible. So what? Prove that its not necessary."

I will be happy to address any of your questions and remarks directly, but I would appreciate it if you would do the same for me.