Reconciling Just War Theory with "Do no evil so that good might come from it"

[NSmith]

I am trying to figure out how Just War theory, which states that war is not just unless it seeks to prevent harm commensurate to the harm that will be inflicted due to war, is not applied consequentialism, which is not an accepted moral theory in the Church. The phrase in quotations is the common refrain I have heard during RCIA at some point.

 

[AlNg]

Could it be partly self-defense and partly applied consequentialism? In the general case, self defense is permitted, but the response should be commensurate to the attack. For example, supposing that someone slaps you slightly on the shoulder. You can defend yourself, but I don’t think you can just get out your AK47 and gun him down with a flood of bullets.

 

[NSmith]

That’s a good point. I’ve heard someone say that Just War theory is essentially the principle of self defense applied to lawful authorities/nations instead of to individuals. That is to say a nation has the right to defend itself in the same way an individual does.
I was just wondering because it seems as though the decision to engage in war is always an acknowledgement of the fact that terrible things are going to be done to other people, and the idea of proportionality is kind of strange when it always involves death, unlike in self-defense when there might be non-lethal recourse. I get that the principle of proportionality is meant to exclude wanton destruction, but no matter how you slice it war is about killing people in large number.

 

[AlNg]

no matter how you slice it war is about killing people in large number

That is a problem that many people see with war today, especially if it is going to involve atomic weapons. Pope Francis teaches us: "“It has never been clearer that, for peace to flourish, all people need to lay down the weapons of war, and especially the most powerful and destructive of weapons: nuclear arms that can cripple and destroy whole cities, whole countries,…The use of atomic energy for purposes of war is immoral, just as the possessing of nuclear weapons is immoral.”

Pope on Hiroshima: Possession of nuclear weapons ‘immoral’

Pope Francis on Thursday marked the 75th anniversary of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima by calling for peace and repeating that not only the use of atomic weapons but their mere possession is immoral.

cruxnow.com

 

[Beryllos]

but no matter how you slice it war is about killing people in large number.

Not really. Governments and military leaders have much more respect for human life than you might think. When killing is necessary, battle plans can be designed to minimize loss of life against the adversary. Of course, battles never go exactly according to plan, and so there may be unexpected loss of life.

 

[Beryllos]

The phrase in quotations is the common refrain I have heard during RCIA at some point.

Sounds like an interesting RCIA. In case they did not go over other aspects of just war, I thought I should post this very brief summary from the Catechism:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[Beryllos]

(from CCC 2309)

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Is this the part that you thought might be applied consequentialism?

 

[NSmith]

Is this the part that you thought might be applied consequentialism?

Yeah, it was the idea that we can predict the harm of the adversary and measure the response against it. That kind of thing was very common in my ethics courses of college, wherein we would debate about the possible harms and benefits of some action in order to determine its moral standing. I recognize and respect soldiers, law enforcement, and warriors, and my instinct has always been that there are times when the application of force, even lethal force, is justified.
I just have to often restrain my instinctual judgement, which would be Machiavelli’s answer, and I paraphrase, “If you must inflict a harm on a man, make sure it is great enough that he cannot retaliate.” The application of the Just War theory proposes practical difficulties, particularly when the opponent does not observe similar restraint. As you say, plans don’t survive contact with the enemy.

 

[SpaghettiCowboy]

(from CCC 2309)

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Is this the part that you thought might be applied consequentialism?

Yes, that last principle that you quote from the catechism is a tough one. And it’s almost impossible to evaluate until after the fact.

See also:

CCC, Part Three, Section One, Chapter One, Article 4, “The Morality of Human Acts”

Specifically,

CCC 1753 “A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation…”

CCC 1756 “It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”

The catechism sets a high bar and makes me think a lot about recent wars and current politics.

 

[NSmith]

The bar is high, for sure. Personally I would only feel justified in taking up arms in defense, which I suppose is one of the principles of the Just War theory. I even wonder about the American Revolution, for example. Did the colonies have rightful authority to begin a war in that case? Or, since it was Britain that refused the Declaration of Independence could it be said that it was the King who declared the unjust war?
I fear that the wars I might see in my lifetime will not have clear declarations or uniformed combatants, either.

 

[MPat]

I am trying to figure out how Just War theory, which states that war is not just unless it seeks to prevent harm commensurate to the harm that will be inflicted due to war, is not applied consequentialism, which is not an accepted moral theory in the Church. The phrase in quotations is the common refrain I have heard during RCIA at some point.

Well, the simple solution is that properly authorised killing as such is not “evil”.

And the harm being talked about is unintended (and unauthorised) killing, destruction of property, breaking down of public order.

Have you considered such a possibility?

I even wonder about the American Revolution, for example. Did the colonies have rightful authority to begin a war in that case?

No.

By the way, that is a different case, for American colonies were not sovereign states. And rebellions are covered by another part of Catechism (although requirements are somewhat similar): “2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”.

 

[Freddy]

I think the operative word here is ‘evil’. It says do no evil so that good may come of it. So if you are defending your country or someone elses (or any scenario that fits a generally accepted definition of ‘just war’) then the actions you take are not considered to be evil.

That does mean that the rules of combat must be formulated in a way which avoids what one might consider ‘evil acts’, such as intentionally targetting civilians.

 

[NSmith]

I have considered and do consider lawful killing to be permissible under the right circumstances. There is another thread debating the death penalty that I’ve been posting in today. However, it would not be right to say that the resulting deaths are not an evil. Indeed, every alternative which does not involve killing is preferable to warfare so long as it also accomplishes the defense.
Killing is an evil, even if the killer may not be guilty of that evil due to mitigating circumstances, such as self-defense, or in a just war, or as the lawful execution of a penalty due for serious crime. Recent developments in the doctrine of the death penalty by Pope St. JPII, and now by Pope Francis, would argue that any form of killing is an attack of the inviolable human dignity and is therefore inadmissible if there is any alternative.
I guess I wonder whether or not it would be virtuous to be a pacifist, yet permissible to wage defensive wars. I can imagine a scenario where refusing to utilize proportionate force results in terrible evil, but I am struggling to reconcile the necessity of force with the dignity of the perpetrators, who retain their rights as persons even if they are involved in deliberate evil acts.

 

[AlNg]

I wonder whether or not it would be virtuous to be a pacifist

AFAIK, Quakers and Jehovah’s Witnesses are pacifists. With modern weapons today, pacifism becomes more appealing. After all, did not Jesus say to turn the other cheek? Of course, as is the case with many Biblical sayings, there are several different interpretations of that.

 

[MPat]

However, it would not be right to say that the resulting deaths are not an evil.

But “death” is not the same thing as “killing”.

Thus, by itself, there is no contradiction between “death” being evil and “killing” being good and praiseworthy, under the right conditions.

And you cite the principle that says “Do no evil so that good might come from it.”, not “Do no thing that results in some evil so that good might come from it.”.

I guess I wonder whether or not it would be virtuous to be a pacifist, yet permissible to wage defensive wars.

No.

That is precisely how we get some of the most horrible of war crimes.

See “Mr. Truman’s Degree” by G. E. M. Anscombe (https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/3032-anscombe-mr-trumans-degreepdf) for more details.

 

[NSmith]

See “Mr. Truman’s Degree” by G. E. M. Anscombe

Marvelous pamphlet; thank you for providing it! The writing reminds me of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, and is uncannily relevant to my OP. I suspect that you were holding onto that link for future use! Again, thank you, it cleared up many things for me, including the debate on the death penalty happening in another thread.

 

[Freddy]

I guess I wonder whether or not it would be virtuous to be a pacifist, yet permissible to wage defensive wars.

But you’d have to include helping to defend others as well. To fight against unwarrented aggression by a third party on a friend.

And what about the concept of ‘retaliating first’? Surely it would be permissable to prevent an agressor building up his strength by attacking first? In which case the decisions become a lot fuzzier.

 

[mdgspencer]

.
The opening post assumes every war is evil.
If there is a just war, the country (perhaps defending itself) isn’t doing evil so good may come from it.
Granted, bad things happen during war. But should we close all hospitals because abortions are done in them.

 

[EssentialBeing]

There are many reasons war occurs, but it is almost always certainly attributed to one or all of these;

(1) Rivalry for possession
(2) Intrusion of a stranger
(3) Frustration of an activity

Certainly from experienced veterans & intelligent brass, there may be a different view that is not often shared with the greater community

War is a rational instrument on foreign policy & an act of violence intended to compel the opponent to fulfill our will - Carl Von Clausewitz 1830

War is a calamity & nothing we should ever be proud off, in fact the only moral reason for anyone to be at war would be to protect the lives of their own people & that of their dearest allies. Of course we may find many reasons to attack or declare war, but should only ever be justified if it is to preserve human life, not markets.

 

[kapp19]

It is not evil to defend yourself or your countrymen. It is an act of justice - as the name “just war theory” implies.

-K