Why doesn't just war theory contradict no evil as means to good?

[Ignatius95]

We’re never allowed to do evil that good may come, right? How can the actions involved in war not qualify as doing evil?
I understand that the doctrine of double effect says that it can be alright to do an act good or neutral in itself, even if it results in evil, so long as it results in a greater good, not by way of the evil, and so long as it wasn’t intended for the evil effect.
But in war, enemies are intentionally killed, as the means to meet objectives. Could it possibly be done any other way? Am I missing something?

 

[dmelosi]

We’re never allowed to do evil that good may come, right? How can the actions involved in war not qualify as doing evil?
I understand that the doctrine of double effect says that it can be alright to do an act good or neutral in itself, even if it results in evil, so long as it results in a greater good, not by way of the evil, and so long as it wasn’t intended for the evil effect.
But in war, enemies are intentionally killed, as the means to meet objectives. Could it possibly be done any other way? Am I missing something?

Take a look at catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

 

[powerofk]

We’re never allowed to do evil that good may come, right? How can the actions involved in war not qualify as doing evil?
I understand that the doctrine of double effect says that it can be alright to do an act good or neutral in itself, even if it results in evil, so long as it results in a greater good, not by way of the evil, and so long as it wasn’t intended for the evil effect.
But in war, enemies are intentionally killed, as the means to meet objectives. Could it possibly be done any other way? Am I missing something?

See the previous poster. But, IIRC, just war theory depends on the idea of legitimate self-defense. A nation is fighting a just war if (a) it is the nation being attacked (that is, the war is defensive in nature), and (b) the leaders try to minimalize civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible (today, of course, it’s nearly impossible to avoid civilian casualties altogether, especially when attackers are using civilians as human shields and when civilians can be forced to fight as soldiers - but tactics that deliberately target civilians, such as the atomic bomb or “concentration” death camps, are intrisically evil).

 

[Robyn_p]

We’re never allowed to do evil that good may come, right? How can the actions involved in war not qualify as doing evil?
I understand that the doctrine of double effect says that it can be alright to do an act good or neutral in itself, even if it results in evil, so long as it results in a greater good, not by way of the evil, and so long as it wasn’t intended for the evil effect.
But in war, enemies are intentionally killed, as the means to meet objectives. Could it possibly be done any other way? Am I missing something?

Part of the Just War theory actually says that if we can achieve the same goal without loss of life, we’re required to do that. We shouldn’t use more force than necessary to achieve that goal. But sometimes there’s no other choice.

If we had phasers with the ability to effectively stun or kill enemies, for example, I believe the Church would say set them to stun since in that case, that would be sufficient. Killing always must be the absolute last resort.

Also, killing in war actually would fall under double-effect. The intent of a just war isn’t to kill the enemy, but to defend the innocent. Sometimes the only way to do that is to kill, but that’s not the intent, the intent is to incapacitate the threat. Again, if that can be done non-violently, or at least non-lethally, that’s a different story. But if there’s really no other option, it’s legitimate.

So it’s not quite doing evil that good may come, it’s doing a good action (defending the innocent) that may involve a bad effect. (delivering the lethal blow.) But if we CAN avoid killing, then we must.

 

[BellsMom]

This is all gobbly gook. The reason the church says it’s okay to kill in war is because if they didn’t the church would loose massive amounts of followers. People like to think their nations wars are somehow righteous, this particular church teaching lets them go on thinking that. It excuses the horrors of war as being “unintended” and “secondary consequences” and “double effect” in the minds of it adherents. Sure we just accidentally blew up an apartment building full of civilians, but we didn’t “plan” too so its just an unintended consequence of us defending ourselves. Nothing to see here.

The idea that the main intent of war is not to kill and terrorize as many of the people you are attacking as possible so they will surrender is a fantasy.

War is horrific and terrible thing. It may be necessary sometimes but it’s never “just” in any sense of the word as I understand it.

What is the last war the church has publicly and officially condemned as violating its just war doctrine?

 

[dmelosi]

This is all gobbly gook. The reason the church says it’s okay to kill in war is because if they didn’t the church would loose massive amounts of followers. People like to think their nations wars are somehow righteous, this particular church teaching lets them go on thinking that. It excuses the horrors of war as being “unintended” and “secondary consequences” and “double effect” in the minds of it adherents. Sure we just accidentally blew up an apartment building full of civilians, but we didn’t “plan” too so its just an unintended consequence of us defending ourselves. Nothing to see here.

The idea that the main intent of war is not to kill and terrorize as many of the people you are attacking as possible so they will surrender is a fantasy.

War is horrific and terrible thing. It may be necessary sometimes but it’s never “just” in any sense of the word as I understand it.

What is the last war the church has publicly and officially condemned as violating its just war doctrine?

The one thing that should be obvious about the Catholic church is that it will never be polictically correct to keep followers. If you would truly read and understand what the church teaches you would know that.

 

[johnmann]

We’re never allowed to do evil that good may come, right? How can the actions involved in war not qualify as doing evil?
I understand that the doctrine of double effect says that it can be alright to do an act good or neutral in itself, even if it results in evil, so long as it results in a greater good, not by way of the evil, and so long as it wasn’t intended for the evil effect.
But in war, enemies are intentionally killed, as the means to meet objectives. Could it possibly be done any other way? Am I missing something?

Self-defense. Repelling an unjust aggressor, even with deadly force if necessary, isn’t considered evil in the first place so isn’t using evil to accomplish good.

 

[BornInMarch]

It is like this.

Say someone is trying to murder you, and you have to kill him in self defense. That is not a sin.

Say instead of trying to kill you, he is trying to kill someone else, and you have to kill him to protect the third person. That is not a sin.

The same principle applies to war; the soldiers on both sides are trying to kill each other so every enemy that a soldier kills in war could potentially qualify as self defense.

If the enemy soldiers are not trying to kill you and are laying down their arms in surrender, than the Geneva convention demands that you only take them as prisoner.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Robyn_p]

This is all gobbly gook. The reason the church says it’s okay to kill in war is because **if they didn’t the church would loose massive amounts of followers. **

We’re talking about the same Church that still condemns contraception, abortion, and gay marriage, right?

If there’s any Church that doesn’t give a hoot about teachings that might lose followers, it’s the Catholic Church.

The idea that the main intent of war is not to kill and terrorize as many of the people you are attacking as possible so they will surrender is a fantasy.

If any country does that, then they are gravely sinning according to the Church.

Just war theory is meant to be a check and discouragement on waging war. There has to be no other alternative. A country has to meet all the requirements before entering conflict, and then it also has to meet the requirements during conflict as well. Otherwise it loses it’s just status.

War is horrific and terrible thing. It may be necessary sometimes but it’s never “just” in any sense of the word as I understand it.

You’re misunderstanding what “just” means in this case. It simply means it’s legitimate and permissible. It absolutely does not mean it’s a positive thing. Like has already been stated, just war doctrine states war must be the absolutely last resort, and even then it must follow certain boundaries. Only then is it legitimate.

But it’s never good.

What is the last war the church has publicly and officially condemned as violating its just war doctrine?

Both John Paul and Benedict condemned the last Iraq war. I remember I think Benedict saying there is no such thing as a “preemptive” war in just war doctrine. And warning that there would be dire consequences if we continued with that policy.

Unfortunately, we didn’t listen. :sad_yes:

 

[Brendan]

We’re never allowed to do evil that good may come, right? How can the actions involved in war not qualify as doing evil?

Your conclusion depends on war always being an evil. It is not.

A just war, by definition, is not a evil.

 

[polytropos]

We’re never allowed to do evil that good may come, right? How can the actions involved in war not qualify as doing evil?
I understand that the doctrine of double effect says that it can be alright to do an act good or neutral in itself, even if it results in evil, so long as it results in a greater good, not by way of the evil, and so long as it wasn’t intended for the evil effect.
But in war, enemies are intentionally killed, as the means to meet objectives. Could it possibly be done any other way? Am I missing something?

Killing is not necessarily an evil, so it is not the case that an evil is the means to the end.

There are other evils that occur in war, to be sure. Some renegade soldiers may harm civilians (killing, extorting, raping). These are not intended, though; the army takes steps to prevent them (imposing and enforcing rules, punishing offenders, screening prospective soldiers, etc.), and they are unintended consequences of the means. (And the good effect does not obtain because the evil unintended consequences obtain.) So what needs to be the case is that the proportionality requirement is satisfied, that the unintended evil does not exceed the good achieved.

 

[polytropos]

This is all gobbly gook. The reason the church says it’s okay to kill in war is because if they didn’t the church would loose massive amounts of followers. People like to think their nations wars are somehow righteous, this particular church teaching lets them go on thinking that. It excuses the horrors of war as being “unintended” and “secondary consequences” and “double effect” in the minds of it adherents. Sure we just accidentally blew up an apartment building full of civilians, but we didn’t “plan” too so its just an unintended consequence of us defending ourselves. Nothing to see here.

Theoretically the just war doctrine is just an extension of the principles of self-defense, and only the most extreme of pacifists would rule out self-defense.

I’m not historian, but it is probably the case that most of the wars in the last century were unjust. World War II may be an exception.

The idea that the concept of a just war is obviously incoherent, though, strikes me as rather simplistic.

 

[polytropos]

Bell(name removed by moderator);12127446:

War is horrific and terrible thing. It may be necessary sometimes but it’s never “just” in any sense of the word as I understand it.

You’re misunderstanding what “just” means in this case. It simply means it’s legitimate and permissible. It absolutely does not mean it’s a positive thing. Like has already been stated, just war doctrine states war must be the absolutely last resort, and even then it must follow certain boundaries. Only then is it legitimate.

But it’s never good.

I would qualify in a couple ways:

• That Bell(name removed by moderator) says, “It may be necessary sometimes but it’s never ‘just’ in any sense of the word as I understand it,” does indicate that something has gone wrong with her concept of justice. If something is necessary, then it must be just (unless one has culpably gotten oneself into a bind, which is possible*). You can’t be required to do something unjust.
• The just war doctrine does not simply mean that a war is legitimate and permissible. It is completely conceivable that some war should not just be permissible but obligatory. Just imagine a nation that is viciously subjugating its people, and another nation that has the means and knowledge to prevent it, having exhausted the other options. Here it is not merely permissible that the second nation intervene, but obligatory, if a war can be undertaken without violating just war doctrine. (You may not have been denying that a war cannot be obligatory, but it is worth clarifying.)
• War is certainly never good. But it can be better than the alternative, such as a vicious subjugation of people by a nation, when all other means of resolution have been exhausted.

*What I mean here is the case that, for example, I make two incompatible promises to two different people. In this case I am required, by virtue of promising, to fulfill both promises. But I can’t fulfill one without breaking the other; in fulfilling one, I break the other. Therefore I am stuck, and I necessarily do wrong. But it’s my fault for getting myself in this bind. Barring the case where I’ve culpably implicated myself in a moral dilemma, if I am required to do X, then it is permissible for me to do X. If I’m required to go to war and it’s not my fault, then it is permissible for me to go to war.

 

[theCrow]

Ladies and gentlemen:

War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children.

The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace. We can make these changes - and we must.

Thank you.

from Jimmy Carter’s nobel peace prize speech. BRavo!

 

[Robyn_p]

I would qualify in a couple ways:

• That Bell(name removed by moderator) says, “It may be necessary sometimes but it’s never ‘just’ in any sense of the word as I understand it,” does indicate that something has gone wrong with her concept of justice. If something is necessary, then it must be just (unless one has culpably gotten oneself into a bind, which is possible*). You can’t be required to do something unjust.
• The just war doctrine does not simply mean that a war is legitimate and permissible**. It is completely conceivable that some war should not just be permissible but obligatory. **Just imagine a nation that is viciously subjugating its people, and another nation that has the means and knowledge to prevent it, having exhausted the other options. Here it is not merely permissible that the second nation intervene, but obligatory, if a war can be undertaken without violating just war doctrine. (You may not have been denying that a war cannot be obligatory, but it is worth clarifying.)
• War is certainly never good. But it can be better than the alternative, such as a vicious subjugation of people by a nation, when all other means of resolution have been exhausted.

*What I mean here is the case that, for example, I make two incompatible promises to two different people. In this case I am required, by virtue of promising, to fulfill both promises. But I can’t fulfill one without breaking the other; in fulfilling one, I break the other. Therefore I am stuck, and I necessarily do wrong. But it’s my fault for getting myself in this bind. Barring the case where I’ve culpably implicated myself in a moral dilemma, if I am required to do X, then it is permissible for me to do X. If I’m required to go to war and it’s not my fault, then it is permissible for me to go to war.

Yes you’re right, good point. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Ignatius95]

See the previous poster. But, IIRC, just war theory depends on the idea of legitimate self-defense. A nation is fighting a just war if (a) it is the nation being attacked (that is, the war is defensive in nature), and (b) the leaders try to minimalize civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible (today, of course, it’s nearly impossible to avoid civilian casualties altogether, especially when attackers are using civilians as human shields and when civilians can be forced to fight as soldiers - but tactics that deliberately target civilians, such as the atomic bomb or “concentration” death camps, are intrisically evil).

It seems to me very problematic to consider war in terms of self defense, because nations are not people, and what is defensive as a nation, will generally involve aggression on an individual level.
Robyn P wrote: "If we had phasers with the ability to effectively stun or kill enemies, for example, I believe the Church would say set them to stun since in that case, that would be sufficient. Killing always must be the absolute last resort.
“Also, killing in war actually would fall under double-effect. The intent of a just war isn’t to kill the enemy, but to defend the innocent. Sometimes the only way to do that is to kill, but that’s not the intent, the intent is to incapacitate the threat. Again, if that can be done non-violently, or at least non-lethally, that’s a different story. But if there’s really no other option, it’s legitimate.”
Thank you. This is very helpful. Why isn’t this included more explicitly in the criteria? That would have helped.
Johnmann said: “Self-defense. Repelling an unjust aggressor, even with deadly force if necessary, isn’t considered evil in the first place so isn’t using evil to accomplish good.”
Only if the unjust aggressor was attempting to murder, and their death was not the intention. Self-defense couldn’t excuse common tactics such as ambushing enemies at unawares.
Polytropos wrote: “Killing is not necessarily an evil, so it is not the case that an evil is the means to the end.”
I’m pretty sure that killing a human being is always an intrinsically evil act, and that is why the Church is consistently pro-life, including on the death penalty. In the case of the death penalty, there is the opportunity to kill the very guilty, but this is not allowed as a neutral act, and to not kill them is “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” (CCC 2267), so to kill them must be less, and therefore wrong (if without necessity).

I do get the horrible feeling that it is just rationalising our crimes. Honestly, what soldier taking their shot hopes that their enemy will survive? I expect very few. How many know the doctrine of double effect and how many are applying it as they consider their commands? War would be very different if they did.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

This is all gobbly gook. The reason the church says it’s okay to kill in war is because if they didn’t the church would loose massive amounts of followers. People like to think their nations wars are somehow righteous, this particular church teaching lets them go on thinking that. It excuses the horrors of war as being “unintended” and “secondary consequences” and “double effect” in the minds of it adherents. Sure we just accidentally blew up an apartment building full of civilians, but we didn’t “plan” too so its just an unintended consequence of us defending ourselves. Nothing to see here.

The idea that the main intent of war is not to kill and terrorize as many of the people you are attacking as possible so they will surrender is a fantasy.

War is horrific and terrible thing. It may be necessary sometimes but it’s never “just” in any sense of the word as I understand it.

What is the last war the church has publicly and officially condemned as violating its just war doctrine?

Odd that this “gobbly gook” is in fact the foundation for the school of thought within Western society that there should actually be limitations on war and what can actually occur during a war. “Nothing to see here” would be how I would label a post by someone who doesn’t bother to actually understand the Church’s teachings on warfare, how these teachings have been developed, or how these teachings are actually just a sub-category of the subject of the unjust taking of a life.

 

[Robyn_p]

Robyn P wrote: "If we had phasers with the ability to effectively stun or kill enemies, for example, I believe the Church would say set them to stun since in that case, that would be sufficient. Killing always must be the absolute last resort.
“Also, killing in war actually would fall under double-effect. The intent of a just war isn’t to kill the enemy, but to defend the innocent. Sometimes the only way to do that is to kill, but that’s not the intent, the intent is to incapacitate the threat. Again, if that can be done non-violently, or at least non-lethally, that’s a different story. But if there’s really no other option, it’s legitimate.”
Thank you. This is very helpful. Why isn’t this included more explicitly in the criteria? That would have helped.

Well, it sort of is. In the section of the Catechism on Self-defense it says:

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses *more than necessary violence*, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful

Self-defense is legitimate when we don’t use more force than necessary. Since part of Just war doctrine states a war must be in self-defense, (no “preemptive war”) perhaps the drafters of the Catechism assumed it was already known and didn’t see the need to include it in the criteria.

It would be nice if it was spelled out more. But nevertheless, it is in there.

I do get the horrible feeling that it is just rationalising our crimes. Honestly, what soldier taking their shot hopes that their enemy will survive? I expect very few. How many know the doctrine of double effect and how many are applying it as they consider their commands? War would be very different if they did.

True. In the heat of battle, most soldiers aren’t thinking about whether they are using more force than necessary or not. They just are trying not to die. Which I think itself would qualify as double effect.

But war is horrific, no doubt about that. And that’s why the Church has such strict requirements that a nation must meet before war can be considered legitimate. ALL the requirements must be met. If even one is missing, we can’t legitimately enter conflict.