Just War and Pacifism: The Problems
If we're not going anywhere, we don't have to worry about getting there...
Posted
Monday, January 08, 2007
by
Josh Michael
Categories:
Theology
Having looked at some of the issues which affect the question of warfare/theology, I will offer some observations on the weaknesses of the two central options.
Pacifism
While pacifism does a better job of drawing out the sacrificial aspect of the principle of love, it seems difficult to conclude that pacifism, with its predilection toward non-involvement, is sufficiently concerned about the victims of aggression or oppression. It is an admirable testimony for a pacifist not to respond to violence with violence, but what if a third-party is suffering violence? Pacifism only seems to be truly meaningful if the pacifist is the object of aggression; a third-party victim is left somewhat high and dry if any witness operate under a conviction of non-violence. Even if a pacifist alerts or appeals to the appropriate higher authorities, is that providing meaningful love and compassion to a victim? It is one thing to sacrifice yourself, but it is another matter to sacrifice somebody else.
Pacifism operates as an individual ethic without much difficulty, but on a corporate/national level, it seems to lose much of the efficacy of its practice. How does a nation respond non-violently (and perhaps sacrificially) toward a nation committing aggression against another? What would be the fate of Kuwait in 1990 or Poland in 1939? And, for those pacifists of the opinion that the duly situated authorities (UN or League of Nations) are the only ones legitimated to act, doesn’t the act of involvement appear problematic?
Another problem with pacifism is that it requires a positive view of human nature and human inclinations. It relies upon the conscience of the aggressor for change. This supposes a natural willingness to do right or to pull back from doing evil on the part of someone who has already begun the commission of evil. Pacifism, on both the individual and corporate level, seems to minimize the idea of punishment as a consequence of wrongdoing. Both punishment for wrongdoing and an awareness of the corruption of human nature seem to be part of a complete Biblical ethic. As a corollary to the preceding, pacifism, by understanding the sacrificial example to be universally efficacious, supposes everyone one else to share the values and conscience of pacifism. This imposition of a moral order is a serious problem. An aggressor must be sensitive to the same concerns that a pacifist is if pacifism is to work. Pacifism therefore, is ideal for a group of persons or corporate entities which all share the same values. But if the moral underpinnings of pacifism have no meaning for a determined aggressor (and consider some of the aggressors of recent world history), what then? In the previous post, I noted that pacifist and just-war use the same terms but with different meanings. “Justice” is a good example. For the just war thinker, justice is the motivation for action; for the pacifist it is the motivation for non-resistance. However, in the Bible, the idea of justice frequently references the defense of the weak and the helpless. Pacifism is ultimately unable to provide any defense for them. As above, sacrifice is well and good if the pacifist is the victim, but if the pacifist is the observer, the third-party victim can have no hope for deliverance. Finally, pacifism, by extrapolating from an individual ethic to a corporate/national ethic, fails to adequately distinguish between the state and the individual. The Bible clearly does. The Law forbids murder, but requires capital punishment – this is not a contradiction because we recognize that one is directed toward the individual and the other to the nation. What the state may do, the private citizen may not. Therefore, it is faulty to limit the state only to that which is permitted to individuals.
Just War
I think there are a number of serious problems with just-war thinking/theories as well. Fundamentally, wars never solve anything. The outcomes of warfare differ from prior expectations more than any other human endeavor. So, WWI was known at the time as “the War to end all Wars” and succeeding only in laying the groundwork for another century of conflict. So warfare itself can only lead to more warfare rather than no warfare. Another obvious problem with just war thought is that the principles of just war have never been consistently and comprehensively applied in any war. Basic just war tenets include (a) distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, (b) limited war objectives [no unconditional surrender or victory], (c) proportional means, along with several other criteria. No war has ever met all of the principles and it is somewhat challenging to find a war that has met even one of the principles. Most wars violate the principle of limited objectives, and nearly all wars of the past century have failed even to make an effort at distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. So if the principles of just war are not actually applied, it is hard not to be suspicious that they only exist to assuage our consciences. After all, at least a pretense is better than nothing. Another fundamental problem is that the principles of just war are useless on an individual level. While pacifism works from the individual to the state, just war works from the state to the individual. If the state says the war is just, what is the individual to do? Should he trust the state or media sources in light of the ubiquity of propaganda, disingenuousness, lies, and disinformation? On the other hand, we have established through war trials that it is no longer acceptable for individuals simply to obey orders and rely upon their superiors. Thus, the individual is encouraged both to question and to obey. Recently, just war has begun to suggest that the individual should evaluate the wars of his nation on a case by case basis. This is probably due to the individualized nature of ethics (and everything else) in the West, and to the uncomfortable realization that many individuals believed they were participating in just conflict by serving the Central Powers, the Axis, or the Communist Bloc. Since the principles of just war are directed to the state, there is very little or nothing to guide an individual soldier at the moment of ethical decision making. An order to push a button or pull a lever is in one sense an order simply to push or to pull, but on the other hand it is an order to kill and to destroy (if those are the results of said pushing or pulling). As warfare is increasingly depersonalized and technologized, the act of killing another human being is redefined in impersonal and technological terms. Just war may contribute to this problem by casting conflict in black and white terms. Just/injust give way to good/evil. Once one side is justified and the other demonized, restraint is that much harder to maintain. Huns, gooks, japs, chinks, krauts, commies – this is how Americans have recently described their opponents. Where is justice?
The final, and to my mind, most serious charge against just war is that the principles of just war are utilitarian. Modern warfare is total warfare, at least between equal states. This completely upsets the context of just, ergo limited, warfare. Between equal states, the principles of just war are discarded as soon as they become inconvenient. Sure, we can afford to try and distinguish between civilians and combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, but only because the US is not truly threatened. In WWII, when the West was in real danger, that distinction went out the window as British and American airforces both engaged in obliteration bombing of civilian centers. States will treat just war principles as a convenience and when there is a conflict between national interest and justice, national interest will always win out.
to add comments