Aquinas+study+questions

(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading) It is the job of ruling authorities to protect the well being of the state they have control over. In the same manner that these authorities use their power to enforce laws inside the state, they must be the ones to declare war against a foreign threat.
 * **What things are necessary for a war to be just?**
 * 1) "The authority of the sovereign under whose command the war is to be waged." Private individuals ought not have the ability to declare war:
 * Grievances of private individuals ought never be the justification for war - they have other forums in which such grievances can be redressed (eg tribunals)
 * Private individuals do not have the ability to summon together the people, which is necessary in war time.
 * 1) A just cause is required to declare war. According to Aquinas, this cause must avenge some wrong caused by a state or inflict a necessary punishment; the state must have a compelling fault which justifies the attack. **What sorts of things might count as compelling faults for Aquinas? 1218149870** An example of a fault could be a breach of a treaty**.**
 * 2) A rightful intention which advances good or stops evil. Rightful motivations include the spread of peace, punishing evil, and coming to aid of the innocent. Unjust intentions such as cruelty, the desire to secure power, and oppression of the innocent result in unjust wars.

First requirement: "The authority of the sovereign under whose command the war is to be waged." There is some controversy over whether this requirement is met or not. The question revolves around who really was able to give authority to the US to go to Iraq:
 * **Would those conditions be present in contemporary cases (e.g., Iraq) according to Aquinas?**
 * If George Bush, as the president, or congress as a representation of the people generally, were able to give such authority, the requirement would be met.
 * However, given the overarching obligations of the United States given its voluntary subscription to the United Nations and the international law principles it endorses (including that military force can only occur if ratified by the security council), it is possible that the above authorities no longer had the authority, having previously given it away. The decision of the UN not to become involved in Iraq therefore may have precluded the first requirement being fulfilled, even though prima facie, it appears that the correct public authority was gained.

It could be argued that the second condition is met because George W Bush had intelligence that confirmed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction **Is this a fault deserving of punishment, in Aquinas' theory? Threat does not seem to be itself a fault 1218149870**. Subsequently the accuracy of the intelligence was found lacking because Weapons of Mass Destruction were not found. He had another just cause to declare war on Iraq. He believed that Saddam Hussein was fomenting instability in an area that had considerable political and economic significance in the rest of the world that could have resulted in escalating conflict in the Middle East **Fomenting instability again does not necessarily seem like a fault that deserves punishment, or would it be one, according to Aquinas? 1218149870**.

The clarity of George W Bush intentions is debatable. Saddam Hussein was oppressing the majority and repressing all dissent using torture and murder. So it could be argued that he was coming to the aid of the oppressed and punishing the evil.

It is likely that in modern day cases that these conditions would be present. All modern day states have some sort of sovereign authority (or bound to a sovereign authority like the UN), so can fulfill this first requirement. However the likelihood that a just cause and right intention could even be conceived of is debatable. Such a morally charged question would be viewed as relative to different interest, peoples and states. However when a nation perceives of a just cause (as appeared to be the case post 9/11 in the war on terror) then that condition can be fulfilled.

Aquinas' theory can justify many wars in theory, but in practice the implementation is not so clear-cut. His criteria lend themselves to broad interpretation, as all three principles (authority, cause and intention) lend themselves to endless debate. This is why Erasmus was critical of Aquinas' theory on the justification of war. He thought that because the definitions of a just war were too loose- then any war could be twisted to fit within those definitions. Thus a variety of modern war could be considered just depending on how loose we are with definitions. Two prominent examples are Iran and Sudan.
 * **Are there any cases of "just war" in the modern world, if we follow Aquinas' criteria?**

An invasion of Iran would be justified by Aquinas if it were able to be shown that they truly posed an imminent threat to Middle-Eastern security **Again, I'm not sure if "threat" really falls within the category of things that justify war, though I can be persuaded 1218149870** and if the intention of the invasion was to stabilise the region. However both these assertions are highly contentious. It is unlikely that Iran would attack countries like Israel without provocation and an invasion will invariably be tainted with accusations of trying to secure Iranian oil in light of global energy security. In Sudan the genocide seems to provide a more clear cut justification for war. Again though, the intentions of the invading army will be questioned, especially in light of the history of western imperialism in Africa and the abject state of many post-conflict nations which went through similar struggles in the region.

A just cause is more than self defense. It is punishing a country for doing wrong. **Examples? Note that this seems to conflict with things said above on the question of whether the Iraq war is just 1218149870**
 * **Is the requirement of "just cause" identical with the idea that a country may only wage war in self-defense? * What would it mean for a belligerent to have a "rightful intention"? Is this condition of just war workable in modern circumstances?**

A rightful intention means that one goes to war to advance good or avoid evil. **How is this shown? How do we tell what the intention of the US, e.g., is in Iraq? 1218149870** Aquinas uses a justification from St Augustine: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Luke 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering." War, then, is justified in at least some instances, particularly where it is fought aimed at peace: "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace."
 * **How does Aquinas reconcile war with the apparent teaching of the gospel? What would Erasmus say to this?**

Where an unjust (or sinful) war is committed, Aquinas argues that the perpetrators comeuppance will come in the end, "because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword."

Erasmus, on the other hand, argues that the only conclusion a good Christian would arrive at would be not to go war, even where peace is the aim of war - for in the end, war leads only to more war, not to peace. On the contrary, an unjust peace is preferable to a just war.

Aquinas argues that their must exist peace in ones warring. I would interpret this to refer to the the idea that the Christian religion itself is peace, and that in war one should also be striving to bring that peace to others. Aquinas quotes the bible, "Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matthew 10:34)". Erasmus argues that even if peace is the objective of a war- any good Christian would realise that war is never just.


 * **Can a soldier kill innocents in war when following orders?**

Aquinas believes that there are three principles to be observed in war. The first is the principle of the Innocent Immunity **Citations - the principle is actually not quite found in Aquinas 1218149870**. This basically says that those who are not fighting, participating, or contributing to the war are safe on home base **Is this what Aquinas means by an innocent? 1218149870**. If you are fighting, justice is still in effect to not harm the innocent. A problem here is that how do you decide if someone is innocent or masking there participation to the cause.

The second, clashing with the first, seems to be a loop hole in the rule you just set up. The Doctrine of Double Effect says that yes we should protect the innocent but sometimes innocent people die. As a soldier it is your job to not target civilians, but if the terrorists are being cowards and hiding behind the innocent then a bomb will kill both of them. So long as your intentions were to not harm the innocent, then you are safe and protected under this double doctrine.

The final and third principle is the Rule of Proportionality. This says that, yes, you should protect the innocent. Yes, you might kill innocent when laying down fire against the enemy. Do your ends balance out your means of acquiring those ends? This principle states that you should try to minimize the innocents you kill. Instead of dropping all of your bombs on the terrorists, who cower behind the innocent, you should drop only one....and it should be small. The problem that still arises from all of this is that these actions require morals on behalf of the soldiers and those in war. Whose intentions are we to trust? **Not sure what the last question points to 1218149870**

The doctrine of double effect is defined as an action taken in warfare when there is knowledge that the effect of such an action impacts on people uninvolved in such warfare. An example of such an action includes the killing of innocent people or non-combatants in an act of war. Such an action can be justified if the nature of the act is morally impartial, if the actor means good, or if the good effect outweighs the bad effect. This theory is applied in war when it is inevitable that civilians are harmed to weaken the enemy. It can be justified when the agent considers it advantageous to harm the enemy despite the possibility of harming civilians with the same action.
 * **Could Aquinas reconcile the idea that we ought not to kill innocent individuals with the fact that most soldiers in modern wars do not choose to go to war (but are rather drafted or coerced into war)? Are only "civilians" innocent in war, according to Aquinas?**
 * **What is the doctrine of double effect? How does it apply in war? Is it found in Aquinas?**

It is believed that Aquinas first thought of this doctrine of double effect. It emerges in his theory of 'Just War'. **Citations 1218149870**

The doctrine of double effect would outlaw cluster munitions especially if those weapons were employed in predominantly civilian areas - southern Lebanese villages. **Further explanation needed - why? 1218149870** The doctrine of double effect can still be applied to modern warfare in much the same way it way applied in Aquinas' time. Because the DDE allows for non-combatant casualties to be sustained during warfare as long as they are not purposely targeted. If it was seen that targeting an enemy that takes shelter behind civilians would create proportionally more good than it would evil then it would be acceptable under the DDE. The same can be said for cluster munitions, as long as civilians are not being purposely targeted and more good would be achieved than evil.
 * **How could we apply the doctrine of double effect in modern warfare? Can an army, e.g., target an enemy that [|takes shelter behind civilians], for example? Can it use [|cluster munitions]?**

Aquinas underlie similar concepts off just war to the Geneva Conventions. Aquinas shows that 'just war' has the principle that innocent have immunity. Innocent meaning civilians in the Geneva Convention. However, Aquinas then goes on to the fact that there are differences to the underlying message to 'just war', these are the doctrine of double effect (kill innocent, you get it back), and God determines the Justice of war not humans. So in theory Aquinas has a bit of both sides to the underlying 'just of war' that to the Geneva Convention.
 * **The Geneva Conventions on warfare explicitly oppose the targeting of civilians and does provide a modern guideline on how to wage war. Do Aquinas' just war concepts underlie the Geneva conventions?**
 * **Which features of Aquinas' theory of "just war" are intentionalist, and which are consequentialist? Can Aquinas be said to lean more towards either of these ethical approaches?**