Serving in an unjust war?

[Ender]

Catholic:

I have some questions about cooperation with the military. Suppose a person helps test missiles for the military. These products could be used for operations that are just or (at the present time, perhaps) unjust.

There are two kinds of cooperation with evil: formal and material. Formal cooperation involves either willing the act or physically participating in it and is always immoral. Material cooperation occurs when a person performs an act which is not itself immoral but is used by another to commit an immoral act and may or may not be immoral. For example: one person volunteers to drive someone to an abortion clinic, another drives a bus that stops at a clinic. Both people materially cooperate in the abortion but only the former has committed a sin - the bus driver is not acting immorally.

Catholic:

I guess it just seems that if a war is currently going on that one believes is unjust, then cooperation would be difficult to do in good conscience.

If a person believes that what he is doing is immoral (whether or not his belief is correct) then his action is immoral. Note: it is important to understand that the reverse is not true - the fact that a person believes an action is moral does not make it so.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ender:

There are two kinds of cooperation with evil: formal and material. Formal cooperation involves either willing the act or physically participating in it and is always immoral. Material cooperation occurs when a person performs an act which is not itself immoral but is used by another to commit an immoral act and may or may not be immoral. For example: one person volunteers to drive someone to an abortion clinic, another drives a bus that stops at a clinic. Both people materially cooperate in the abortion but only the former has committed a sin - the bus driver is not acting immorally.

If a person believes that what he is doing is immoral (whether or not his belief is correct) then his action is immoral. Note: it is important to understand that the reverse is not true - the fact that a person believes an action is moral does not make it so.

Ender

Of course there are sincere beliefs and there are insincere beliefs. For example, it is possible to talk oneself into beliving an abortion is a good thing (people do it all the time.) Similarly, it is possible to talk oneself into believing that it would be wrong to make the sacrifices the country calls on us to make in war time.

I am always suspicious of someone who wrestles with his conscience and decides that the only moral course is the one with the most benefit for himself.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Your conscience must be informed by the Church, and the Church (in paragraph 2310 of the Catechism) has placed the responsibility and authority of judging the justice of the war on the government, not on the individual citizen.

Furthermore, in 2311, the Church places a responsibility on those who are legitimate conscious objectors to serve in some capacity.

It says “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” not “the government.” The CCC is for the universal church, and so must apply to all Catholics in all the different countries they live in, under various forms of government.

In the United States, the president is commander in chief, and the congress declares war, so in a strictly limited sense, these bodies have responsibility for decisions about war. Yet both the president and the congress, under our system of government, are supposed to be representative of the people. In other words, they are accountable to America’s citizens. Therefore, you and I and every other American most assurdly DO have responsibility for evaluating the justice of a war, as the decision to go to war is carried out under my name and yours. The duty of an American citizen is never to give the government a free pass, but to constantly examine its actions and hold it accountable. This applies when the government goes to war in our name just as surely as in any other action our government undertakes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

It says “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” not “the government.” The CCC is for the universal church, and so must apply to all Catholics in all the different countries they live in, under various forms of government.

In the United States, the president is commander in chief, and the congress declares war, so in a strictly limited sense, these bodies have responsibility for decisions about war. Yet both the president and the congress, under our system of government, are supposed to be representative of the people. In other words, they are accountable to America’s citizens. Therefore, you and I and every other American most assurdly DO have responsibility for evaluating the justice of a war, as the decision to go to war is carried out under my name and yours. The duty of an American citizen is never to give the government a free pass, but to constantly examine its actions and hold it accountable. This applies when the government goes to war in our name just as surely as in any other action our government undertakes.

It has been my experience that when people apply “situational ethics” they almost always find they are “morally impelled” to do what is in their own self interest.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

It has been my experience that when people apply “situational ethics” they almost always find they are “morally impelled” to do what is in their own self interest.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I’m not sure what you mean by situational ethics here. My contention is that, in the United States, private citizens have a moral obligation to evaluate the justice of a war (that we as citizens are the legitimate authority, in other words). Perhaps you could further clarify what you mean by your statement.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I’m not sure what you mean by situational ethics here. My contention is that, in the United States, private citizens have a moral obligation to evaluate the justice of a war (that we as citizens are the legitimate authority, in other words). Perhaps you could further clarify what you mean by your statement.

The Church, in Her wisdom, assigns the authority and responsibility to make the determination to the government for a reason – the individual citizen has neither the information nor the expertise to make an informed decision.

Those who reject this do so, in my experience, mainly because it benefits them personally to do it, or because it fits in what their personal agendas.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

The Church, in Her wisdom, assigns the authority and responsibility to make the determination to the government for a reason – the individual citizen has neither the information nor the expertise to make an informed decision.

Those who reject this do so, in my experience, mainly because it benefits them personally to do it, or because it fits in what their personal agendas.

But in the United States, we are the government. I didn’t set up the people as the legitimate authority, the Constitution does. Perhaps this will be easier to see in a syllogism:

• The Church assigns responsibility to legitimate authority
• In the US, legitimate authority is vested in the people
• Ergo, the Church assigns responsibility in the United States to the people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

But in the United States, we are the government.

No, we are not the government – we are a representative democracy. We elect people, who in our judgement can be trusted to make the right decisions. They make those decisions with advisors and information that ordinary citizens do not have.
Philip P:

I didn’t set up the people as the legitimate authority, the Constitution does.

The Constitution establishes a government (read the Preamble.) It assigns duties and powers to the government. Among those is the power and duty to make decisions of war and peace.

Find the clause in the Constituion that says we declare war through a plebiscite.
Philip P:

Perhaps this will be easier to see in a syllogism:

• The Church assigns responsibility to legitimate authority
• In the US, legitimate authority is vested in the people
• Ergo, the Church assigns responsibility in the United States to the people.

False syllogism. Try it this way:

– The Church assigns authority, responsibility and duty to “the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

– The Constitution assigns that responsibility to the Legislative and Executive branches of the government.

– Ergo, the responsibility (and the knowledge and expertise) resides in those elected to carry out such a responsibility

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

No, we are not the government – we are a representative democracy. We elect people, who in our judgement can be trusted to make the right decisions. They make those decisions with advisors and information that ordinary citizens do not have.

We elect people to speak for us. They represent us, not rule over us. It is right and proper for us to ask questions of those we elect to be sure they are truly representing our interests.

The Constitution establishes a government (read the Preamble.) It assigns duties and powers to the government. Among those is the power and duty to make decisions of war and peace.

Find the clause in the Constituion that says we declare war through a plebiscite.

The question is not over the mechanism of declaring war, but of the authority. The authority for the Constitution, and all mechanisms set for within, come from the people. Hence the very first words of the constitution are “We the People” in large, bold letters. We grant the government legitimacy, and thus we should and in fact must constantly judge whether the government’s actions are right and just.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

We elect people to speak for us. They represent us, not rule over us. It is right and proper for us to ask questions of those we elect to be sure they are truly representing our interests.

They make the laws, no? And we must obey them, yes?

Now, we can vote someone else in next election – but we do not make laws – or declare war – by plebiscite.
Philip P:

The question is not over the mechanism of declaring war, but of the authority. The authority for the Constitution, and all mechanisms set for within, come from the people.

And they granted that authority to the Central Government in 1789, and we have not revoked it.
Philip P:

Hence the very first words of the constitution are “We the People” in large, bold letters. We grant the government legitimacy, and thus we should and in fact must constantly judge whether the government’s actions are right and just.

For your position to be valid, we would have to make laws and declare war by plebiscite – and we don’t.

We granted that power to our representatives in 1789, and that grant remains in effect. The role of the individual citizen is to elect the officials to carry out the responsibilities outlined in the Constitution with the powers we granted them in 1789.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

For your position to be valid, we would have to make laws and declare war by plebiscite – and we don’t.

We granted that power to our representatives in 1789, and that grant remains in effect. The role of the individual citizen is to elect the officials to carry out the responsibilities outlined in the Constitution with the powers we granted them in 1789.

Nonesense. The Constitution spells out the mechanism by which governance is carried out, but it is quite clear that the ultimate authority and justification of the entire machinery of the state is to carry out the will of the people. How a war is carried out - by plebiscite, by declaration of congress, whatever you choose - is simply the means. The authority for it - the reason congress can declare war in the first place or the president send troops into battle - is always grounded in the presumption that the government is carrying out the will of the people.

I am the source of authority for the US government. So are you, and any other citizen of the United States. I not only have the right to pass judgment on the acts of my government, I have a duty to. So do you. It is through the dialog amongst citizens that the will of the people is discerned, and it is this will which grants the president and congress the authority to act and which ought to be their guide in actions. Citizenship begins at the voting booth; it does not end there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Nonesense. The Constitution spells out the mechanism by which governance is carried out, but it is quite clear that the ultimate authority and justification of the entire machinery of the state is to carry out the will of the people. How a war is carried out - by plebiscite, by declaration of congress, whatever you choose - is simply the means. The authority for it - the reason congress can declare war in the first place or the president send troops into battle - is always grounded in the presumption that the government is carrying out the will of the people.

I am the source of authority for the US government. So are you, and any other citizen of the United States. I not only have the right to pass judgment on the acts of my government, I have a duty to. So do you. It is through the dialog amongst citizens that the will of the people is discerned, and it is this will which grants the president and congress the authority to act and which ought to be their guide in actions. Citizenship begins at the voting booth; it does not end there.

With all due respect, Phillip, when you have to re-write both the Constitution of the United States and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you are on very shaky ground.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

With all due respect, Phillip, when you have to re-write both the Constitution of the United States and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you are on very shaky ground.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

That’s a rather unhelpful remark. It’s just as obvious to me that you’re the one attempting to rewrite the Contsitution and CCC.

If this is the tack you want to take, go ahead and have the last word. I don’t see the point in getting involved in a dead-end debate.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

That’s a rather unhelpful remark. It’s just as obvious to me that you’re the one attempting to rewrite the Contsitution and CCC.

If this is the tack you want to take, go ahead and have the last word. I don’t see the point in getting involved in a dead-end debate.

I understand that you feel frustrated.

But the Constitution specifically creates a representative government and gives it powers. The Congress is given the power to declare war, the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

And the CCC gives the authority and responsibility for making decisions relating to the Just War doctrine to the responsible officials. The paragraph in question says:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have the responsibiliy for the public good.

At the time that was written, the Church was fully aware of the existance of representative democracies.

When you try to make the government of the United States into a direct (or Athenian) democracy, and make the CCC say “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to each individual citizen” you are re-writing both the Constitution and the CCC.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

I understand that you feel frustrated.

But the Constitution specifically creates a representative government and gives it powers. The Congress is given the power to declare war, the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

And the CCC gives the authority and responsibility for making decisions relating to the Just War doctrine to the responsible officials. The paragraph in question says:

At the time that was written, the Church was fully aware of the existance of representative democracies.

When you try to make the government of the United States into a direct (or Athenian) democracy, and make the CCC say “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to each individual citizen” you are re-writing both the Constitution and the CCC.

I think we’re hitting a philosophical root of why you and I never agree on political issues. Your interpretation appears, to me, to turn the US into a government of rotating tyrannies, each tyrant granted a term of four years. If the only time the people have any influence on their government is at election time, what are they supposed to do the other 1459 days? How can they even know who to vote for unless they are also able to observe and judge the actions of their government during this time?

To bring my posts closer to being OT, let me put my objection into the context of this thread. I do believe that a soldier is morally required to take part in a war, even if he or she believes the cause is unjust (he or she is not required to participate in unjust actions, however. In fact, he or she may be morally required to act to prevent such actions, eg whistleblowing).

If one feels they would be unable to fulfill this obligation of obedience, they should not join. If they are drafted, then they must serve, but the government acted wrongly in drafting.

In the case of a volunteer (non-draft) military, where one is debating whether or not to join, one’s personal evaluation of any ongoing conflict certainly is very relevant.

In all these cases, the potential soldier, acting as a private citizen, has the right and duty to pass judgment on his or her government’s prosecution of the war.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

I think we’re hitting a philosophical root of why you and I never agree on political issues. Your interpretation appears, to me, to turn the US into a government of rotating tyrannies, each tyrant granted a term of four years.

No, my interpretation of both the Constitution and the CCC hinges on reading them as they are written and not trying to bend them to fit a pre-conceived notion.
Philip P:
If the only time the people have any influence on their government is at election time, what are they supposed to do the other 1459 days? How can they even know who to vote for unless they are also able to observe and judge the actions of their government during this time?

Again, trying to re-write the Constitution. There are elections every two years (not every four.) And in some states every year. It’s called an “election cycle” and the time in between elections is spent executing the policies that were the heart of the last election and preparing for the next.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:
No, my interpretation of both the Constitution and the CCC hinges on reading them as they are written and not trying to bend them to fit a pre-conceived notion.

The words of the CCC are not in dispute here. Both my position and yours accept the words as written.

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

Where we differ is in who, in the United States, has the “responsibility for the common good.” The difference between our positions is a question of Constitutional interpretation, not Catholic teaching.

My position is that the responsibility for the common good is not limited to elected officials, but that individual citizens also share in that responsibility. I base this on a reading of the Constitution that sees the government deriving it’s authority and legitimacy from the people.

I’m having a hard time understanding your position. In your reading, the people seem to have irrevocably transferred all authority and legitimacy to the mechanism of the state in 1791.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

The words of the CCC are not in dispute here. Both my position and yours accept the words as written.

Then we agree the government officials have the responsibility, not the general populace?
Philip P:

Where we differ is in who, in the United States, has the “responsibility for the common good.” The difference between our positions is a question of Constitutional interpretation, not Catholic teaching.

My position is that the responsibility for the common good is not limited to elected officials, but that individual citizens also share in that responsibility. I base this on a reading of the Constitution that sees the government deriving it’s authority and legitimacy from the people.

I’m having a hard time understanding your position. In your reading, the people seem to have irrevocably transferred all authority and legitimacy to the mechanism of the state in 1791.

As I see your position, if you see someone doing something wrong (committing Gomorahmy, for example) and you believe it should be a crime – but it isn’t – then you arrest them yourself, try and convict and punish them? Is that how you see the Constitution?

We are a nation of laws, not of men.

Dwight Eisenhower

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Then we agree the government officials have the responsibility, not the general populace?

Almost. We agree that government officials have responsibility. However, I see the general populace as also bearing responsibility.

For instance, I believe that the Iraq invasion was unjust. This means that, while I hold the Bush administration primarily responsible, I too share have a share in culpability. I can’t just fob it off on George Bush.

As I see your position, if you see someone doing something wrong (committing Gomorahmy, for example) and you believe it should be a crime – but it isn’t – then you arrest them yourself, try and convict and punish them? Is that how you see the Constitution?

No, because part of my position is commitment to working within the system. When faced with an unjust law, the moral duty of the citizen is to work to change it, not to obliterate rule of law. For instance, while I feel that the death penalty is immoral, it would be wrong to in some way attempt to sabotage the execution of the sentence (say chaining yourself to the prison’s gates or some other act designed to prevent the execution of the law).

I most certainly do have a right to work for the revocation of an unjust law, however. I see a war as no different. It is an act of the government. If I feel it is unjust, while I must certainly work within the system, I also have a moral obligation to work to correct what I perceive as a failure by my representatives.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Almost. We agree that government officials have responsibility. However, I see the general populace as also bearing responsibility.

For instance, I believe that the Iraq invasion was unjust. This means that, while I hold the Bush administration primarily responsible, I too share have a share in culpability. I can’t just fob it off on George Bush.

You believe. But you do not have access to classified information, nor do you have the training and experience to reliably evaluate that information. That’s why the Church places the responsibility on the government.

Note also, the Church calls upon government to make provision for conscientious objectors – but says those persons must serve in some capacity.
Philip P:

No, because part of my position is commitment to working within the system. ]

And yet you take positions that aid our enemies.
Philip P:

When faced with an unjust law, the moral duty of the citizen is to work to change it, not to obliterate rule of law. For instance, while I feel that the death penalty is immoral, it would be wrong to in some way attempt to sabotage the execution of the sentence (say chaining yourself to the prison’s gates or some other act designed to prevent the execution of the law).

I most certainly do have a right to work for the revocation of an unjust law, however.

Just what law are you working to revoke? The power of the Congress to declare war? The designation of President as Commander-in-Chief?

Your error is in equating “unjust law” with an on-going war.
Philip P:

I see a war as no different. It is an act of the government. If I feel it is unjust, while I must certainly work within the system, I also have a moral obligation to work to correct what I perceive as a failure by my representatives.

And if you are wrong in your judgement (as you likely are, due to your lack of information and lack of training and experience to reliably evaluate that information) will you accept on your head the blood-guilt of those soldiers who die as a result?