Just war theory?

[Mling]

Out of curiosity: Is there a reason you distinguish between a friend and others?
I am asking because I suspect that such distinctions are the underlying cause for every use of violence, and that in the end it always comes down to "because I prefer this person to live over that person to live". Not that I necessarily criticize this (in fact, I am struggling with finding a rational approach in this question myself), but I think it´s worth pointing out that no matter how reasonable we succeed in making our arguments sound - they are still nothing but rationalizations of our preferences.

It isn't wholly rational on my part, either. I would like to think that I would die to save the life of pretty much anybody, but I don't know about that. I have a hard time imagining myself just sitting by and watching somebody die, though, if I could see a way to help them.
The flip side is, I would also like to think that I would be careful enough to solve any violent problem without adding to the violence, but I know myself to well. I am ridiculously protective of my friends. I don't know if I would deliberately set out to kill somebody who was holding a knife to my friend's throat, but I think it's safe to say that I would attack him/her without putting any effort into not killing them, and the thought doesn't make me squeamish.

In my head, I understand that this just adds to the overall violence of the world, and contradicts a lot of other things that I believe. I am consciously trying to train myself to feel it and act accordingly. But I know myself, and I know what happens to me when I fly into mother-bear mode.


I won't get into all the issues around "does it have an effect," but to say I should have clarified it a bit. Of course, killing a soldier, or an unarmed village, has an effect. I was thinking, specificially, about whether it has an effect that addresses the issues that prompted the war in the first place. Follow that with, could that issue have been addressed in other ways, if not for the stubburnness of the countries' leaders?

 

[Mling]

I don't think I've seen this here, yet: the actual principles of Just War Theory.

Principles of the Just War

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

 

[RedAndy]

I don't think I've seen this here, yet: the actual principles of Just War Theory.

I thought of citing this here earlier (see my reference to jus ad bellum on the first page), but given that I don't agree fully with it, I decided against it.

Specifically, I don't like the idea that "war can only be waged by a legitimate authority." This essentially precludes revolution or uprising, no matter how repulsive the government that is being fought against. Certainly I believe there are examples in the past where a war to overthrow an incumbent government have been justified.

 

[Blackmarch]

Sorry let me clarify:

I can see a moral argument for defending one's self and one's family against armed invaders. But that's not so much what war is about these days. It is largely proactive,wherever possible. Even if you don't subscribe to the George Bush "Pre-Emptive War Doctrine" war fighters still lay ambushes, surprise attacks, flanking maneuvers etc. The net effect of it is that a lot of war as it is fought is against unsuspecting targets that are not, in the main, presenting any immediate threat to the unit firing upon them.

In the States that have self defense justifications for homicide, you generally are not entitled to "self defense to death" someone unless they present an immediate, deadly threat. So even if your spouse has abused you, threatened to kill you etc. you still aren't entitled to "self defense them to death" in their sleep.

Thoughts?

As for the tactics part, supposedly the war has already started by either by offensive action by the enemy or by your side- so both parties are aware of the situation (and also supposing that efforts of diplomacy have failed) then I see that use of tactics such as ambushes and etc.. if they can shorten teh war or reduce the amount of people you lose then they aer justifiable.

as for the immediate threat bit in your home it would have to be an imediate threat and the terminal action be taken at that moment, not later, to be justifiable.
One would hope that diplomatic means for solving the situation would have been attempted before such action.

There can be justifivation to first strike actions, but such is harder- If one party is aware of another party that is taking actions to harm or destroy the first party, and all other (nonviolent) recourses for either negating or stopping the oncoming harm from the second party has been exhausted (which is a key point) than yes a first strike is justifiable... depending what that strike consisted of.

However justifiable does not equal the best option, or best action.

 

[quatona]

It isn't wholly rational on my part, either. I would like to think that I would die to save the life of pretty much anybody, but I don't know about that. I have a hard time imagining myself just sitting by and watching somebody die, though, if I could see a way to help them.
The flip side is, I would also like to think that I would be careful enough to solve any violent problem without adding to the violence, but I know myself to well. I am ridiculously protective of my friends. I don't know if I would deliberately set out to kill somebody who was holding a knife to my friend's throat, but I think it's safe to say that I would attack him/her without putting any effort into not killing them, and the thought doesn't make me squeamish.

In my head, I understand that this just adds to the overall violence of the world, and contradicts a lot of other things that I believe. I am consciously trying to train myself to feel it and act accordingly. But I know myself, and I know what happens to me when I fly into mother-bear mode.


I won't get into all the issues around "does it have an effect," but to say I should have clarified it a bit. Of course, killing a soldier, or an unarmed village, has an effect. I was thinking, specificially, about whether it has an effect that addresses the issues that prompted the war in the first place. Follow that with, could that issue have been addressed in other ways, if not for the stubburnness of the countries' leaders?

Thanks for explaining, Mling!