The Psychology of War > > Home

The Collapse of the Just War Theory in the Twentieth Century

ETS 2007: Craig Carter

Posted Wednesday, November 21, 2007 by Charlie Trimm
Categories: Military Issues  
The one paper from ETS which I am going to write about was certainly not the best paper which I heard, but it is the most relevant to my research. The paper was given by Craig Carter and was entitled "The Collapse of the Just War Theory in the Twentieth Century". His main point was that the wars of the past 100 years have shown that just war rules cannot be put into practice. It is not that they are mistaken and can be tweaked, or that people are sinful and sinned, but that the rules themselves are self-contradictory and simply cannot be followed, even by a theoretically perfect person. Just war theory always ends up excusing murder. Carter claimed that the fire-bombing and A-bomb of WW2 were a time of transition for the west. They had the option of losing or sinking to the level of the Nazis ethically, and they chose the latter. This choice led to a subsequent devaluing of human life, as exemplified by the increase of abortion in later years and other assaults on human life. He gave the intriguing parallel scenario: if Hitler had developed the A-bomb and dropped it on London, we would call him a butcher for it. But we do not have the same reaction when the West dropped an A-bomb on Japan.  

He said that in order for him to follow a just war theory, the following two criteria would need to be met:
1. Differentiate between two kinds of killing.
2. Must be able to put theory into practice

Also, the following would need to happen.
1. Education in church on just war and just war principles.
2. Ban certain weapons (chemical, nuclear) which cannot discriminate between civilian and military targets
3. Decide when surrender is appropriate
4. Conditional patriotism
5. Absolute prohibition of murder
6. Reject consequencalist thinking

The questions followed two lines of thought. The first had to do with the hypothetical situation of Hitler. He was pushed on whether these two situations (Hitler on London and US on Japan) were the same ethically. He said yes. Then he was questioned whether motive had any role: wouldn't Hitler be more wrong because he sought to kill while the US sought to save lives? He said no, while motives are important, both acts as acts are equally wrong.
The second line of questioning had to do with a parallel situation: If people run stop signs, should we be ban those too? He simply didn't get the question, and so there was little interaction with it. I think that actually a better parallel would be that since people run stop signs driving is inherently unsafe and so we should ban driving.
The one major problem I have with the presentation is the one problem I have with any pacifist position I have encountered so far: love for neighbor. What do I do when my neighbor is being oppressed or a genocide is being committed next door?

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:51 PM

Eric wrote: 

Thanks for posting this Charlie.

 I wish I could get a copy of this paper as it is a subject that I find intensley interesting.  

I think he is accurate in expressing a need to diferentiate killing from murder.  Actually, I believe that there is probably a need for three as I believe capital punshiment to be pretty clearly distinguished from murder in the Bible.  

I find the dichotomy on this subject in the Bible to be facinating.  On the one had war is clearly indicated to be bad, evil and the result of the fall.  On the other hand, it appears as well that war was a tool God used.  David was a man who pursued God and was clearly loved by God, but he was a warriors warrior, a man that clearly lived by that ethos.  War was used by God by Israel to lay claim to the promise land, and used by God again to punish Israel.

I think a parallel that might well be relevant is natural disaster, which has been (is) used by God for His own purposes, but is clearly defined as evil.  This may well be a question that of a personal theodicy. 

Login to add comments