Fordthought
  • Blog
  • Word of the Week
  • Dig Deeper

Can war ever be limited?

17/7/2014

 
Picture
The news today of Air Malaysia Flight MH17 which was shot down over The Ukraine (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28354856) has highlighted, yet again, how warfare and conflict is not nicely contained to a war-zone, but spills out to affect people with no connection or influence upon the war. This has also been seen this week in Gaza where innocent bystanders have been killed in Israel's attempt to kill Hamas leaders (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/innocent-gone-israeli-strike-gaza-kills-four-children-n157301). These kinds of incidents lead us to consider carefully what the limits of modern warfare are and how politicians, strategists and ethicists should respond.

Picture
There is a long history of thinkers suggesting that there should be a distinction made between combatants and non-combatants. This goes back as far as the Middle Ages when in the 10th century leaders of the "Peace for God" movement “forbade all acts of warfare or vengeance against clerics, pilgrims, merchants, Jews, women, and peasants” (Bellamy, 31) and was most clearly articulated by St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century when he wrote that there should be “complete prohibition on killing the innocent” (Bellamy, 40). This was and is held in high regard by followers of Thomas and remains part of Modern Just War Theory. This is categorised as part of Aquinas’ Jus in Bello - conditions to be regarded during warfare. Modern Scholars such as Brian Orend state that terrorist attacks aimed at non-combatants are “always an impermissible tactic, since it involves the killing of innocent civilians” (Orend, 70)

The principle is clearly very hard to argue against - as a principle. Those who are not killing others, regardless of their political views, nationality or location should be left alone. I have always regarded this as a “quid-pro-quo” sort of argument. You would not want members of your own society to be killed or injured in such a way and so you should not kill others. Kant would thoroughly approve.

But does this principle work in reality? Can a nation or group start a conflict and really hope to keep innocents out of it?


Well before you say no - and start to slag off St Thomas Aquinas - it might be worth remembering that warfare was very different in Thomas’ day. There was, quite literally, a field of battle; rulers agreed through negotiation where and when the battle was fought and codes were followed as a matter of chivalric honour. This was wonderfully satirised in Asterix in Britain (click on the image to enlarge)

With this in mind it is not surprising that Aquinas views the killing of innocent with moral horror. You would have had to go out of your way as a Knight of foot soldier to kill bystanders. You could be in the next village, out of ear-shot, and not even know a war was going on! However in the modern era, with weaponry that would have been unimaginably powerful to Thomas and totally indiscriminate when fired or detonated, the death of innocents has seemingly become an inevitability. Added to this war is not fought under the same strict conditions and, as can be seen in Israel/Palestine and The Ukraine at the moment, war is not necessarily even “declared” as such. 

Has warfare changed so much that the JWT is now redundant?

On the one hand you could say; it is a principle, and the principle is a good one even if it is not often maintained in the modern world. 


Or you might say; warfare is so powerful and indiscriminate that you cannot go to war “morally” in the modern world and so one should not go to war (the thinking of Contingent Pacifism)

References:

Bellamy, Alex. Just Wars. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006. 
Orend, Brian. The Morality of War. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2006.
 
https://blogs.montclair.edu/tae/files/2010/11/TAE-Vol.-1-Issue-1_Just-War.pdf




    Archives

    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Absolutism
    Agnostic
    Analogy
    Animal
    Apophatic
    A Priori
    Aquinas
    Article
    Assisted Dying
    Banking
    Bertrand Russell
    Book Review
    Buddhism
    Christianity
    Cosmological
    Covenant
    Dawkins
    Debate
    Design
    Diaspora
    Dig Deeper
    Dukkha
    Epiphany
    Equality
    Euthanasia
    Existentialism
    Fallacies
    False Dichotomy
    Family
    Fertility
    Genesis
    Hajj
    Higher Education
    Hindu
    Hinduism
    Holocaust
    Hospice
    Human Rights
    Human-rights
    Hume
    Islam
    ISRSA
    Judaism
    Justice
    JWT
    Lent
    Life After Death
    Love
    Martyr
    Messiah
    MOOC
    Narnia
    NDE
    News
    Nirvana
    Ontological
    Plato
    PPE
    Pro Choice
    Pro-Choice
    Pro Life
    Pro-Life
    Prophet
    Reformation
    Relativism
    Religion
    Rights
    Sabbath
    Science Vs Religion
    Secularisation
    Soul
    Sport
    Stewardship
    Surrogacy
    Teleological
    Temple
    Ten Commandments
    Theology
    Viability
    Via Negativa
    Vision
    Warfare
    Wittgenstein
    Word
    Word Of The Week
    Word-of-the-week

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos from sneakerdog, Steve Slater (Wildlife Encounters), Art4TheGlryOfGod, johndillon77, dustinj, Charlie Davidson, ineffable_pulchritude, LisaW123, jamee.khairul, Abode of Chaos, Dunleavy Family