Vitoria+study+questions

No, the barbarians were not natural slaves. They had some degree of reason (Vitoria speaking), ordered societies, laws etc. They were also true masters. He does continue to say that the Natives are 'dull' and refers this to their education (not much different to rustic Spanish peasants. //It was argued that people who are in a state of mortal sin (the barbarians) did not have the right to rule over their land. The Spaniards were termed irrational, unbelieving and madmen. Other titles argued by Vitoria to justify the rule of the Spaniard include: that the emperor is master of the whole world, that the pope had supreme authority over the world, also claiming justification by virtue of discovery, by the voluntary acceptance of the natives and a title to the land by gift of God.// //No, the few titles that Vitoria endorses includes, that all men have the right to travel the world and to exchange and trade freely - as long as the native people are not unintentionally/intentionally harmed. The barbarians, Vitoria argues, must be allowed to trade with the Spaniards. This he makes clear by saying the following: “They may import the commodities which they lack, and export the gold, silver, or other things which they have in abundance”. Vitoria also claims that the Spaniard have a right to evangelize and Christianize the New World, protect new converts and also protect the innocent should they be endangered.// After contact with Europeans, the traditional power structure of most indigenous societies was weakened. Is this not harmful then? Victoria believes that people should be allowed to interact with each other in any way that will mutually benefit them provided that the action does not harm the others. The right to free trade is one such action. He believes that people should be allowed to coexist for a bettering of the future. The Spanish seek to enslave the natives of Central America. They believe that it is there duty to evangelize to the natives. They justify there actions of cruelty and capturing on a single premise. The will of God! The Spanish clash with the "Mutual Benefit" principle that Victoria proposes. There argument is that they have other just causes, such as God on there side, that allow them overlook lesser principles. The law of nations specifically dictates that trade cannot be impeded, and following proper discussion where the Spaniards are right in asserting this and the obstinate refusal of the other party, war can be justified. There is one circumstance that trade has a possibility of being justified with a restraint that Vitoria sees which is the protection of trade but this is just a potential justified title. In reality Vitoria is no means justified to restraints, there is the abuse of trade. This leads to unjust causes of war etc. Therefore Vitoria shows no real justified restraints on trade but only potential. Yes, the evangelic mission of Christian in this era was pathological. Any impedance of the process could result in a just War, sanctioned by the Pontiff. Yes, considering civilising consists of evangelising and spreading the good word which is one of Vitoria's arguments. -Protection of universal right to trade with others There are always going to be trade disputes (c.f. Bay of Islands 1840s NZ) which will need some authoritative mediation and the use of force. In the Native authority did not enforce any norms of trade, Spanish would be compelled to act. -Protection of right to evangelise Questioning by the Spanish of religious order in pre-Colombian society resulted in conflict and retaliation/vengeance. The Natives were officially declared to have souls in 1537, after publication of the papal bull - Sublimis Deus -Protection of the converted -Protection of the innocent against tyranny -Genuine Voluntary choice -Alliance with some natives against others -Near madness of Natives Weak at best,
 * **The Background above states that Vitoria was "Famous for defending the native Indians that were subjected to harsh rule by the Spanish". Is this what Vitoria actually did? Would it not be more accurate to argue on the evidence of the set readings that Vitoria did very little for the rights of the Indians and that in reality his primary objective and substantial contribution was in fact to defend and legitimise Spanish imperialism?**
 * **Are native Americans natural slaves, for Vitoria? Why or why not?**
 * **Does Vitoria's interpretation of Aristotle seem accurate?**
 * **Does natural slavery provide grounds for subjecting the native Americans to the authority of the Spaniards?**
 * **What gives the Spaniards the right to rule the native Americans**
 * **Are all of these titles endorsed by Vitoria?**
 * **Are the travels of the Spaniards really "neither harmful nor detrimental to the barbarians [Americans]" as Vitoria assumes (3.1, p. 235)? How would his argument change on the contrary assumption? (E.g., mere travel by the Spaniards brings disease to the Americans)**
 * **What is Vitoria's justification for free trade? Is this recommendation in accord with Spanish policy at the time?**
 * **Why is "restraint of trade" a just cause of war for Vitoria? Is he right about this?**
 * **Are there circumstances under which restraints of trade are justified, for Vitoria?**
 * **Would the USA, for example, be justified in going to war to enforce a decision of the WTO?**
 * **How does Vitoria understand a "just cause" of war between the Spaniards and the Americans? Are the Americans justified in attacking the Spaniards? Are the Spaniards justified in defending themselves?**
 * **Are the Spanish justified in conquering the Americans to secure themselves from attack? Would Augustine approve of Vitoria's advice on this point?**
 * **Is spreading the gospel a just cause of war for Vitoria? Why?**
 * **Consider the following case: Saudi Arabia prohibits all missionary activity, on the grounds that Islam is a true religion, and hence that one does harm to Muslims by exposing them to a mistaken religion. Is there a Vitorian case for war in these circumstances? Is there a case against war?According to Vitoria, war can be made against the Saudis since Christianity is the 'true faith'.**
 * **Is it possible to construct a Vitorian argument for just war on the basis of the "free spread of religion" that does not depend on assuming that Christianity is true? Would Vitoria think that "humanitarian intervention" is a just cause of war? How might Vitoria compare to Aquinas in this respect?**
 * **Is Vitoria right that there is a "humanitarian intervention" just cause for war? What if the natives disagree with the alleged harm?**
 * **Consider the following case: in the 18th century, widows were routinely burned in the funeral pyres of their husbands ([|sati or suttee]). Would Vitoria say that stopping this practice is a just cause of war for the British?**
 * **How is that case different from, say, making war to prevent theft or fornication?**
 * **Is the "civilising" of the Americas a just cause of war for Vitoria?**
 * **Is Vitoria merely legitimating the Spanish conquest of the Americas (as Erasmus might have thought)? Or is he providing grounds for criticizing such conquest?**
 * **What are the justifications Vitoria offers to Europeans for possible war against the American Indians? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Vitoria's justifications? (Taken from Pols/Phil 2005 exam)**