The Cellar - What Criterion for "Just War"

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - What Criterion for "Just War" (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=3045)

What Criterion for "Just War"

The crux of the current debate on Iraq seems to rest on the criteria by which war may be justified. There are not many who would hold that taking up arms is never justified in any circumstance; neither are there many who hold the opposite extreme, that "might makes right", and any who have strength may wield it at will.

While there has been a great deal of discussion surrounding the question of whether those standards have been met, there has not been much discussion surrounding how the standards ought to be constructed.

With that in mind, where does the dividing line stand? In homage to Augustine's theory on "Just War", what list of criteria must be met, and what standards must not be violated, in order for warfare to be ethically and morally justified?

-sm

It must be brownies who are being killed, and we must make a lot of money from the war.

Well lets see, do we need a baseline to start? Dr. Vincent Ferraro of Mount Holyoke has what I assume is a decent synopsis of the Catholic view on his website.

Quote:

Principles of the Just War
A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The main problem I have with the war falls under "reasonable chance of success." I think we can be successful short term, however, our long term prospects are dim. I believe we will increase the power of mid-east radicals, harm international relations, and damage the security of the US proper.

civil wars are the only justifiable wars. civil wars are usually a product of extreme civil unrest, most times, in response to oppression from a tyrannical ruling class.
these are actions of the people (or a percentage of people) for the betterment of the people.
because civil wars are declared by the people instead of a small ruling class, it is easier to justify. instead of being sent to war by a faceless tyrant to suit a hidden agenda, the people are acting by their own accord.
dont get me wrong, i dont believe that there is a truely "just" war. it can always be avoided; but, unfortunately, most times it's easier to slaughter the masses than it is to change a few minds.

"Whats so civil about war anyway?"
-Axl Rose

It sounds like Dr Ferraro has not studied the history of the catholic church or disapproves of it.