The morality of war is an interesting and vexing question. Ideally, of course, war would never happen and never be morally licit - so much death and destruction really can't be regarded as anything but awful. At the same time, though, it's clear that there are times when war must be necessary. But when, and why?

Darrell Cole wrote in the Spring, 1999 issue of the Journal of Religious Ethics:

For Aquinas there are only three requirements that war must meet in order to be considered just (ST II-II 40.1):

1. It must be conducted on the authority of the sovereign, since care of the commonweal is the responsibility of the sovereign who is the only authority competent to decide when such cases require recourse to the sword in defense against internal and external strife.

2. It must have a just cause, since those attacked should deserve the attack on account of some fault (here he quotes a list from Augustine: avenging wrongs, punishing a nation, restoring what has been seized unjustly).

3. It must be conducted with rightful intention, since we must intend to advance the good and to avoid the evil (again from Augustine: securing peace, punishing evildoers, uplifting the good).

These are all interesting and important ideas, but are they the only factors which could make a war justified? Is it not possible for them to be misused — for example, might a country not think that “uplifting the good” requires the extermination of some ethnic group? There is a lot of vagueness in these conditions which, ultimately, rely on people starting out with good will and not seeking evil under the guise of good.

 

Quick Poll: Are preventive or preemptive wars just?

1. Preemptive wars can be just, but preventive wars only very rarely - if ever.
2. Both preemptive and preventive wars can be equally just.
3. Neither are just.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't care.

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• War and Morality
• War on Terrorism