Augustinian Just War theory is one of the many reasons I strongly dislike the Church of Rome.
I know it's not as bad as what some evangelicals teach, but it's not anti-war and it's not even anti-interventionist. It basically says policing a dangerous world is okay as long as the world's policeman doesn't become more aggressive which is subjective. By being subjective, it lets the very institution that wages war decide whether the war it wages is just.
Your thoughts?
As a Catholic I think it's a lot better than what other institutions teach. If the US had applied it then the US would never have gone to war with anyone ever. I have issues with it, but it's pretty good in an imperfect world.
Well.. The fact that "war" entails taxation already implies the actor is aggressive.
Your thoughts? Based on your description you don't understand 'just war theory' very thoroughly, to be quite honest. Here is a (very brief) statement of the theory from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309:
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Also, Michael Walzer is one of the most profound contemporary thinkers on the issue of 'just war theory' and his book Just and Unjust Wars is about as valuable a tome on the subject as you will find. The wiggle room which has been manipulated in 'just war theory' lies in that last sentence from the Cathechism: "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good," or, in short, being declared by a proper authority. Obviously there is a complex set of conditions encompassed in the former statement that need to be properly assessed, which is what makes it so succeptible to simple manipulations of form as expressed by my summation. So as far as some notion of 'just war theory' being interventionist or condoning world policing, even in the sole defintion I have provided it should be clear that 'just war theory' finds interventionism, much less world policing, to be morally repugnant and unjustified to say the least. As far as being anti-war, I think the only person who could not find the 'just war theory' to be anti-war is the person who believes that no war is ever justified. I personally find that kind of proposition absurd. I also found an interesting exposition on 'just war theory' here at these forums, although I haven't digested the discussion well enough to comment on it.
St. Augustine genuinley tried to limit war and it's brutality the best way he knew how - I find that respectable. Also, there was no anarcho-capitalism / liberterianism/NAP back than, nor do I t think people tend to see it as the progressive and ultimate end all be all measuring stick of the human condition.
If there are ultimate imperatives, logic, neccesities, and consequences to thinking about the science or even metaphysics of human action - so be it, but I see no need to discuss moral or historical "oughts" if that is the case; that's just drinking haterade
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
No2statism:I know it's not as bad as what some evangelicals teach, but it's not anti-war and it's not even anti-interventionist. It basically says policing a dangerous world is okay as long as the world's policeman doesn't become more aggressive which is subjective. By being subjective, it lets the very institution that wages war decide whether the war it wages is just. Your thoughts?
Firstly, do you accept the non-aggression principle? I'll assume you do.
Let's equate war with a state or pure coercion, just a special form of it, mass coercion. It's a simplification, but ethically accurate, and we can judge it in terms of the NAP.
Then, can we suppose that wars often have an aggressor and a defender? I allow that some wars may have two aggressors, but it is also possible to have a war with an aggressor and a defender. Which would mean that some wars, at least, are just, at least those conducted on the part of the defenders, whom are within their rights via the NAP.
Now, it should be seen that it is possible to defend not just yourself, but also other parties--just as one can morally defend another from being robbed or raped by an aggressor on the street. Which means it would also be just to invade a country that was oppressing its own people, or invading another people. This is what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places, and is why it received mass international approval for the acts of invasion.
So, you criticize Augustianian's view as "not anti-war" and "not anti-interventionist", yet using the NAP I have shown why there are wars that are moral, and interventions that are moral. It is not rational to be outright anti-war and anti-interventionist, without qualifications.
So, if a nation were powerful enough to police the world only using responsive-coercion, never aggressing, that would be ideal. Ideally we'd have more than one nation doing this, making tyranny in any part of the world impossible. But we have twisted notions of national sovereignty currently that prevent most people from considering beneficial invasion. Perhaps Iraq's outcome will help disabuse people of the previous notion of unrestricted national sovereignty even unto the world tyrannies.
So, policing the world with justice -is- okay as like as the policeman doesn't become an aggressor. And that is not subjective, you can rationally judge any situation along the NAP. Your last sentence about letting those that wage war decide whether to wage war is a consideration, but that's why nations have legal requirements before war can be decaled. Even the US president must abide by certain rules before he can act militarily, and the congress could check him should they so desire.