The title of this post was chosen by Wirt not me. It applies to the article
he posted. I agree with his assessment. I do wish to make it clear that the
title "Worth Reading" does not necessarily apply to what is written below.

Jimmy Carter refers to the principles of "Just War." I applaud the fact that
a former political leader is trying to make a moral statement against the
war, not a political one. Both the pro and anti war camps claim to be the
true bearers of the cloak of "Just War". What is the concept of "Just War?"

As a Christian The-ological concept, "Just War" came into being in the
fourth century. Augustine of Hippo espoused the concept, in his work City of
G-d, De Civitas D-ei. The only place it appears in the work is in the
following passage:

"For even when we wage a "Just War," our adversaries must be sinning; and
every victory, even though gained by wicked men, is a result of the first
judgment of God, who humbles the vanquished either for the sake of removing
or of punishing their sins."

Extrapolating from his work later scholars created these principles of "Just
War":
        1.      Proper Authority - A temporal leader with the moral
authority to declare the "Just War."
        2.      Proper Cause - No specific cause is given but revenge, lust
for power, lust for goods are specifically mentioned as not proper reasons.
It is generally accepted that the war should be defensive or at least in
response to aggression.
        3.      Probability of Winning - Even if your cause is just you may
not throw your soldiers into certain death without hope of winning, i.e. you
don't go to war "to prove a point."
        4.      Proportionality - This is the most difficult to define of
the principles. Among the precepts are: the harm caused by response is not
greater than the original act of aggression, i.e. destroying a country
because they destroyed a city would be disproportionate. Additionally
proportionality has come to mean that non-combatants must be shielded from
the ravages of war, at all costs.

In Summa The-ologiciae, Thomas Aquinas says a war may be just when three
principles are met:
        1.      The authority that declares war has been given the duty of
maintaining the common good.
        2.      A just cause must exist. Aquinas defines this as: A "Just
War" is apt to be described as bone that avenges wrongs, when a nation or
state has to be punished, for defusing to make amends for the wrongs
inflected by its subjects, or to reborn what it has seized unjustly.
        3.      The warring party must have the right intention. Augustine
noted, "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not
for motives of aggrandizement or cruelty, but with the object of securing
peace or punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." Aquinas adds, "An
evil intention, such as to destroy a race or to absorb another nation, can
turn a legitimately declared war waged for just cause into a wrongful act."

All of this is the basis of the "Just War" debate. Arguments against this
war, such as the ones made by President Carter appear to be valid based on
the principles of Augustine and Aquinas. Based on even a cursory reading of
the principles above it is easy to see how the pro-war camp can make a
convincing argument as well.

Let's examine some of the principles of the Augustine/Aquinas "Just War"
concept. The first principle is that a moral authority with the political
power and the assigned duty to protect the common good declares war. The
concept of the "Divine right of kings to rule" is the basis on this
principle. There a number of questions one can ask based on the assumptions
Augustine/Aquinas make.

Can the principle of "divine right" be applied to elected leaders? If this
principle is applied to elected leaders is it applied to Presidents Bush,
Chirac and Schroeder equally? Who has been assigned the duty to maintain the
world's common good?

The just cause principles suppose that the "avenging" nation has the right
to decide who needs to be avenged. If one nation is allowed to decide when
and how other nation's actions are to be avenged what is to stop another
nation from doing the same. The whole principle presupposes a moral
superiority that is hard to justify in any nation or person.

The probability of winning principle is sound enough. Do not kill your
adherents needlessly. This is the converse of the proportionality principle,
i.e. do not kill your enemy needlessly.

The proportionality principle has one major flaw. The proportionality
principle criteria are all subjective. This again presupposes a level of
moral superiority that is hard to justify.

In summary the "Just War" concept is highly questionable. At best, it is
based on out dated concepts that were probably not even true when the
doctrine was created. At worst, it is the The-ology of Arrogance; born of
self-righteousness of the type that brought us other similar doctrines like:
Manifest Destiny, The White man's burden, All G-ds Children Gotta have
shoes, Western Civilization, sexism, racism and Things go better with Coke.
It is a concept that supposes that someone or something, namely my leader or
my cultural bias, knows what is best to the exclusion of all others.

There is no Just War. The concept legitimizes war even while denouncing it.
Arguing that the proposed war is not a Just War gives credence to a concept
that is incorrect in its ideology, erroneous in its assumptions and evil at
is core.

I propose a new concept of waging a "Just Peace." Here are the principles:
        1.      Responsibility - I must take responsibility for my actions.
My actions, whether under the duress or otherwise, have direct consequences
upon the world in which I live. I am responsible whether through action or
inaction to create harmony and prevent violence.
        2.      Humility - I, as a human being, am not omniscient. I have no
right to act as the judge, jury or executioner of any other being. My
purpose for being is to include, not exclude, all others.
        3.      Knowledge - To the extent that I am able, I must learn
"right" and "wrong." I must learn that doing "right" and refraining from
"wrong" are the minimum requirements for every human being. Without this
knowledge, only division can exist. Division is the opposite of Peace.
        4.      Sharing - Each person has their portion to add to the pool
of knowledge. To withhold one's portion or prevent others from sharing their
portions prevents filling the pool. Accepting the knowledge and seeking to
spread it is an important step in creating the environment in which Peace
thrives.
        5.      Understanding - On one hand, I am but a small part of a
large whole. On the other hand, without me there is no whole. I am the most
important being in existence and so are you.
        6.      Goal - The goal of humankind is to live in Peace. All other
goals are diversions. When we live in Peace we will attain our true stature,
fulfill our potentials and be that vessel through which all light and
knowledge passes.

Let Peace be the maxim by which we act because we will Peace to become a
universal law.
Work For Peace
The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my
employer.
Yosef Rosenblatt

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *