The ancient Greek and Roman empires, originating over 2000 years ago, seem so far in the past that it is difficult to believe that these ancient cultures have anything to do with our modern culture. To assume this would be a big mistake. Many of the same ethical and moral dilemmas that faced the ancient world are still salient in today’s culture. Issues of sexuality, violence, and the ethics of medicine are all still just as much in contention today as they were 2000 years ago.
In our blog on the ethics of ancient imperialism I am focusing on the just war theory. Although the just war theory dates back at least to Cicero around 100 BC, it is still extremely relevant to today’s society. So far in my research I have found countless examples of the ancient just war theories being explicitly referred to in modern day justifications for war. Just war theory is essentially the criteria that are thought to make a war just and the right thing to do.
There are many ancient texts that refer to the just war theory. In a previous blog I gave several direct quotations from Cicero’s De Oficiis. This was my first step in getting a good foundation for how the ancients thought about the idea of a just war. I then began reading a book by Craig M. White called IRAQ The Moral Reckoning. This book was very helpful in connecting the ancient ethics of war to modern just war theory. White’s book began with an overview of the many ancient philosophers that discussed just war theory. He compares how Aristotle’s Politics, Augustine’s City of God, Cicero’s Commonwealth and De Oficiis, and Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica defined the criteria for a just war. The synopsis of all of their arguments is in a previous blog entry of mine. What I found interesting about looking at the primary texts for all of these ancient just war theories were their inherent similarities.
To first look at some primary text, here is an excerpt from Cicero’s Commonwealth: “Then, too, in the case of a state in its external relations, the rights of war must be strictly observed. For since there are two ways of settling a dispute: first, by discussion; second, by physical force; and since the former is characteristic of man, the latter of the brute, we must resort to force only in case we may not avail ourselves of discussion. The only excuse, therefore, for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed; and when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare”. This quote is one of the first times that a person wrote about just war theory. It provides an example of the criteria that ancients thought were necessary to go to war. According to this passage it must be a last resort after discussion, and must be for the greater cause of achieving peace in the future. There are many excerpts from primary sources in my previous blogs that outline in greater deal how these ancient texts defined just war.
Nicholas Fotion’s book, War and Ethics: a new just war theory, nicely outlines the major points of what most of western culture considers a just war. A just war must have a just cause, war must be used as a measure of last resort, war must be fought to the right proportion, the war must have likelihood of success, it must have the right intentions, and a legitimate authority must sanction it. It is absolutely remarkable that all of the ancient authors that I mentioned above essentially agreed with this basic outline. What is even more stunning is that this basic outline has not changed since ancient times. The theories of just war developed by Cicero 2000 years ago are still relevant today and current world leaders still cite these ancient texts and authors when selling the idea of going to war to the public.
Fotion’s book gives a great example of how the just war theory has been applied in more modern wars. He uses World War II as an example and more specifically Germany’s justifications for invading Poland. As Fotion points out, most times a nation goes to war they have ways of justifying their acts of aggression. In the minds of the leaders, they have a just cause in going to war. One such just cause may be to restore lands seized from them in previous wars. Another just cause may be that its own people living abroad are being oppressed. Even another reason may be that the nation that is the victim of the attack is not really a victim because there have been other incidents in the past that hinted at aggression. In 1939, Germany used all of these justifications in invading Poland. Germany was very concerned with portraying that its leaders had a just cause in initiating a war. It is obvious in retrospect that Germany both fabricated these claims and exaggerated others, but nonetheless German leaders tried very hard to convey to the public that their attack was justified.
White’s book deals with more recent applications to the just war theory, namely how it was applied in the United States’ decision to go to war with Iraq. Craig White outlines in detail how the US applied all the aspects of the ancient just war theory when selling the Iraq war to the public. It began with the United States, a sovereign authority, declaring the war. In all of the ancient texts on just war theory a key requirement is a sovereign authority declaring the war. One example of this is from Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica: “Judgment is lawful insofar as it is an act of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above…that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it comes from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment will be faulty and unlawful.” The United States also gave three just causes for the war. First the US declared that it was attacking an armed and reckless regime that was harboring terrorists. The second just cause was that it was attacking Iraq as a preemptive measure. President Bush said, “Before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed”. In this just cause the US also said that it had the right to attack due to United Nations resolutions, also drawing on a sovereign authority giving the US a right to wage war. Also part of this just cause was that the US promised a “New Iraq” that would in the end be better for the Iraqi people. The US also argued that the war they were waging was of the right proportion, it is being used as a last resort, and that it had a reasonable chance of success. It is astounding that all of the ways that the US tried to justify its waging war on Iraq comes directly from the ancient theories of a just war.
Yet another modern reference to the ancient just war theory came in President Obama’s acceptance speech after receiving a Nobel peace prize. In his speech he specifically mentions the just war theory, as I discussed in a previous blog. One line from his speech made me think about how just war theory is applied in the modern world that may be different than in the ancient world since up until this point I have discussed how remarkably similar ancient and modern just war theory is. Obama mentions that living in this modern time with increasingly dangerous weapons of war we need to strive for peace more than ever. This statement by Obama made me further research the idea of perhaps a “New Just War Theory”. John D. Jones and Marc F. Griesback have a book called Just War Theory In The Nuclear Age. This book brings up many interesting ideas about how there perhaps needs to be a new just war theory. The ethics of war in present day society must take into account the possibility of nuclear war. Is dropping nuclear bombs on a country ever just? Perhaps in ancient times war was more common because it was not as lethal as it is today. The Romans fought hand-to-hand combat; they did not have weapons of mass destruction to wipe out entire cities within seconds. The issue of fight a “proportional war” is much different today than in the ancient world because we now possess the power to destroy the earth many times over with nuclear weapons.
I have provided to video clips below that directly tie into applying ancient just war theory in modern ethical dilemmas. Both clips are of American intellectual Noam Chomsky. In these clips he is giving a speech in 2003 about the United States decision to go to war with Iraq. In the first clip he talks about the idea of the war with Iraq being a “preemptive war” thereby giving it a just cause. This modern application of the just war theory dates back to antiquity. Chomsky is saying that the war with Iraq is a preemptive war, thereby making it seem that the US is justified in war because it is for future defense. In the second clip Chomsky talks specifically about the just reasons in going to war with Iraq. It is very interesting to note the parallels between the ancient just war theory and how it is still being applied to our modern theory of war.
No comments:
Post a Comment