https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20131011_2.htm
Mr. Fetterman, right and wrong is not defined by your fear or your team favorites. Right and wrong is a more thoughtful thing, and doing that mental work includes reckoning with the truth that what we do to others is right for others to do to us. Think about that, please. I hope that someone reads it to Mr. Trump as well.
Just War Theory
Jus ad bellum
1. Wars must be fought only on legitimate authority. This criterion aimed to limit conflicts by small-scale barons, captains and princelings, and is often treated as the sine qua non of Just War Theory. [4]
2. The cause must be just. The war must be fought, for example, in order to resist aggression, protect the innocent, or to support the rights of some oppressed group. There must be significant reasons which are weighty enough to overthrow the prima facie duty that we should not kill or injure others.
3. The war must have right intention. It must advance the good and avoid evil, have clear aims and be open to negotiation; it must not be for revenge or for the sake of killing and there should be no ulterior motive. It must be waged without love of violence, or cruelty; and regret or remorse should be the proper attitude. This is shaped by the pursuit of a just cause. Since peace should be the object of war, killing is a means to that end. This condition also holds for jus in bello.
4. It must be a last resort, all other attempts having failed or being unavailable.
5. There must be a reasonable hope of justice, or a reasonable chance of success, in order to prevent pointless wars. If there is no such hope, then it would not just be imprudent, but there would be no good grounds to override the prima facie obligation to not harm others if none of the just ends can be realised, and thus going to war would be immoral. [5]
Jus in bello
6. There must be discrimination. Non-combatants should not be directly or intentionally attacked, although it is recognised that there may be accidental casualties.
7. There must be proportion; that is, there must be a balance between the good achieved versus the harm done. This condition takes into account the effects on all human beings, not just those on one side, and it is the effects on humans rather than other physical damage which have priority. This condition also applies to jus ad bellum, in order to prevent going to war over minor disputes.
A just war, then, is not a war in which both sides act justly; in fact there cannot be such a war. For a war to be just, that war must be waged in order to right a wrong or to prevent an imminent injustice.
The Basis for Just War Theory
There is general acceptance that killing is, all things being equal, a grave wrong. John Rawls argues, for example, that we have a ‘natural duty’ which is owed to persons generally not to injure or harm others. [6] Christian theology derives the same obligation from the Decalogue and more generally from the norm of agape. [7] It is necessary then both to demonstrate that the prima facie obligation not to kill or injure others is overridden in the case of a just war and that the innocent [8] are not being directly killed.
The demands of justice are such a case. For example, outside the room in which I am writing there is a playground full of children. If someone came into the playground and started to attack the children and if I had a rifle by the desk, I would be justified in shooting the assailant, even though I myself may not be at risk. The classical natural law of justice, which is viewed as superior to the laws and demands of any State, sees all people as brothers and sisters who share in the cosmic logos and thus we are required to treat each other with the justice and respect owed to all. [9] Implicit is a concept of human solidarity, according to which we have mutual obligations and duties to all people. Roman law also involved contractual obligations which entitled one to protect the rights of others and seek redress from those who cause the individual or State injury or harm.
Just War Theory is based on this classical view and from it the central concepts derive: that of the prior guilt of the offending party; and of just war as a means of vindicating violated rights or a violated order of justice, or as the means of restoring justice. However, the enemy’s natural rights must be protected since they are also humans and must be treated with justice and respect, even after hostilities have begun. Hence conduct in war must be just. [10]
The decision to go to war is not made simply on the basis of the enemy’s deeds, for example being unjust or violating international law, but also on one’s own intentions: they must be upright in terms of both means adopted and ends pursued. Moreover, all the aims and intentions must be included. It is not permissible to use some just intentions to justify the pursuit of other unjust intentions. Thus clear objectives are required. Intent, however, is complex; moreover, outcomes of wars are notoriously unpredictable: they rarely achieve their political objectives unambiguously and often become the cause of future wars.
= new reply since forum marked as read
