Joseph,

> The proportionality principle criteria are all subjective.

It seems to me that the crux of your argument is contained in this one
sentence.   Is that a fair assessment of your argument?

The huge irony is that you would replace "subjective" Just War theory with a
"Just Peace" theory that, if anything, is even _more_ subjective!   If Just
War theory is bankrupt because of "subjectivity" then I say your principle
is even worse.

> Humility -  ...  I have no right to act as the judge, jury or executioner
of any other being.

It seems to me that your principle seems invalidates significant parts of
the UN charter and other charters of international law.

I believe that such discussions must start with the basics.   Do you believe
in a right to self-defense?   Is there ever such a thing as justifiable
homicide?

Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>Behalf Of rosenblatt, joseph
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:02 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: Worth reading
>
>
>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 *

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