Just War Theory (Philosophy of self-defense)

[Hoi Polloi]

This topic has directly or indirectly come up in many recent posts, so I thought a thread dedicated to the theory of a just war both as it applies to international relations and to personal self-defense would be appropriate and interesting in this forum. A just war theory is a philosophical statement on when it is ethical to enter into a physical confrontation/war. By virtue of its definition, the statement attempts to cover all possible situations in which a war might come up, so it doesn't get bogged down in details.

What do you think constitutes a just act of aggression? Is it ethical to preemptively attack someone with deadly force because you have a reasonable suspicion that he is preparing to use deadly force against you? Should you have to wait in the defense position until someone else attacks with deadly force first? Are there mitigating factors for when force is justified, such as expressed desires that the person has no philosophical problem killing you if he is capable? Or with differing physical or emotional states like a threat of deadly force coming from the mentally ill or a person with less physical strength than you? Do you have different expectations at an individual vs a national/corporate level and, if so, which has the stricter expectation? Is the intentional taking of another's life (versus stopping an immediate threat with the force necessary, including deadly force) ever justified?

Do you think Texas' laws represent your views on ethical just wars, especially concerning self defense? What about the US' federal guidelines and laws? If not, how would you like to see them changed so that they are consistent with your philosophical beliefs on what constitutes a just war? I look forward to an engaging discussion!

A few websites I just googled and have not vetted on the topic in case some people want to see what it is about before responding:
Whole philosophical website dedicated to just war theories: http://www.justwartheory.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Short philosophical definition of just war theory: http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Principles of a just war: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[03Lightningrocks]

The list of variables is endless. I sure would not want to stand in front of a jury and claim I killed a person because they were yelling at me and I got scared. A person of equal or greater size yelling at you as they approach aggressively is a different story. But even in this situation, all bets are off if it is someone you have been friends with or related to. Do they have a known history of beating folks up? The variables just go on and on and on.

Personal defense situations are tough to compare to international situations. But similarities do exist. Such as, a threat with no real ability means nothing. If a three year old says they want to kill me as they rush at me, I can't use deadly force. If Uganda says they are going to launch a tactical nuclear strike at the US, we can't and shouldn't start launching missiles at them. Iran saying they want to wipe Israel off the planet calls for measure to prevent them from gaining the ability to accomplish this goal. If they have a missile cocked and ready to fire, somebody needs to blast Iran first. Again... the variables just go on and on.

[srothstein]

This is an interesting concept and discussion. I had never considered it, but the philosophy of just war can be applied to individuals almost as well as to nations. I am not sure my opinions of just war as a philosophy will agree with some of the proponents of the philosophy, so i will apply it to the slef-defense laws and comment from there.

As a general rule, I think Texas law does not match my opinion on when force and deadly force should be justified. It may seem a little bloodthirsty of me, but I do not agree with the list of crimes restricting deadly force and some of the restrictions on deadly force to protect property. Probably the most egregious example is the law requiring an agreement with the property owner before I can use deadly force to protect a third person's property. Second worst is the limit on stopping theft to just during the night time.

I understand the principles behind the two limits and feel they may be a more civilized standard than mine. The requirement for an agreement on a third person's property may not only be civilized but it may be good tactics (so I know it is really being stolen and not taken with permission, for example).

But I would use deadly force to stop almost any theft anytime, and to protect a third person's property from being stolen.

[Oldgringo]

What does HOI Polloi think constitutes a just act of aggression? Inquiring minds want to know...

[stevie_d_64]

I don't believe there is much of a comparison (reasonable, credible) between "war" and "self-defense"...

Having been a part of both situations, I can clearly define both, with completely different descriptions...

War, being an act of a nation state, either as an aggressor, or a defender against aggression...

Self-Defense, is an individual act whose only possible connection to the previous is a need to defend ones self against deadly threatening aggression...

If you have to have a philosophy behind self defense, in my opinion it is different from person to person...Some similarities may exist, but it is an individual mindset, that has its own rules, tolerances, "line-in-the-sand", equipment, etc etc etc...

Just my opinion...

[Shoot Straight]

Is it ethical to preemptively attack someone with deadly force because you have a reasonable suspicion that he is preparing to use deadly force against you?

That depends. What do you mean by reasonable suspicion? What do you mean by deadly force?

If a robber makes an immediate credible threat (ability, opportunity, jeopardy) I don't fell obligated to let him take the first shot (stab, etc.) before I use force (including deadly force) to protect myself.

If a US citizen kills Osama bin Laden, I don't have a moral or ethical problem with that, in general.

[glbedd53]

I think I would be a lot less like to pop someone to protect property. Probably a little less likely if I'm alone. If my wife, daughter, or grandaughter is with me, that's a whole different world.

[couzin]

Not to sure you can develop an epistemology that covers the acts of a nation taking preemptive action (act of war), and that of having to confront the local friendly parking garage mugger. Acts of war are way above my pay grade and atmosphere. The philosophy behind that one is "you guys go to ZA blah blah, shoot at anything that moves" - ain't no philosophizing there, just keep your head down. Dealing with the mugger - simple, whatever you need to do to stop the threat (if you can ascertain one...).

Interesting topic though, I'll stay tuned...

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't believe there is much of a comparison (reasonable, credible) between "war" and "self-defense"...

Having been a part of both situations, I can clearly define both, with completely different descriptions...

War, being an act of a nation state, either as an aggressor, or a defender against aggression...

Self-Defense, is an individual act whose only possible connection to the previous is a need to defend ones self against deadly threatening aggression...

If you have to have a philosophy behind self defense, in my opinion it is different from person to person...Some similarities may exist, but it is an individual mindset, that has its own rules, tolerances, "line-in-the-sand", equipment, etc etc etc...

Just my opinion...

Thank you for writing my answer for me. In my mind, personal self-defense and war are two entirely different entities, and cannot be conflated. What may be justifiable for one, is not justifiable for the other—most particularly preemptive strikes. If you shoot and kill someone preemptively, you've just committed 1st degree murder....assuming that your victim was not in the act of harming someone else at the time. And if he or she was in the act of harming someone else, you'd better be darn sure that they weren't doing so legitimately, like an undercover cop trying to arrest someone and scuffling with them.

I believe that under certain specific situations, preemptive military actions can be justifiable, but you had better be sure you're right before you do it, or history will judge you harshly if the justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Ol Zeke]

This is an interesting concept and discussion. I had never considered it, but the philosophy of just war can be applied to individuals almost as well as to nations. I am not sure my opinions of just war as a philosophy will agree with some of the proponents of the philosophy, so i will apply it to the slef-defense laws and comment from there.

As a general rule, I think Texas law does not match my opinion on when force and deadly force should be justified. It may seem a little bloodthirsty of me, but I do not agree with the list of crimes restricting deadly force and some of the restrictions on deadly force to protect property. Probably the most egregious example is the law requiring an agreement with the property owner before I can use deadly force to protect a third person's property. Second worst is the limit on stopping theft to just during the night time.

I understand the principles behind the two limits and feel they may be a more civilized standard than mine. The requirement for an agreement on a third person's property may not only be civilized but it may be good tactics (so I know it is really being stolen and not taken with permission, for example).

But I would use deadly force to stop almost any theft anytime, and to protect a third person's property from being stolen.

But.... if you loosen the restrictions on use of deadly force for theft of property, wouldn't you, in effect, be creating a near open season on politicians?

[Hoi Polloi]

Here are some of the positions I was able to find on just war theories from some of the major world religions:
Eastern Orthodox
Roman Catholic and here
Southern Baptist
United Methodist
Friends/Quakers
Coptic Orthodox
Evangelical Lutherans
Islam
Reform Judaism
Buddhist and here
Sikh
Hindu
Secular Humanism and here
Mormon
Adventists
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives on Just Peacemaking

I know a few others besides the below responded, but I have to get to bed for tonight. I hope the conversation will continue in my absence!

I understand the principles behind the two limits and feel they may be a more civilized standard than mine. The requirement for an agreement on a third person's property may not only be civilized but it may be good tactics (so I know it is really being stolen and not taken with permission, for example).

But I would use deadly force to stop almost any theft anytime, and to protect a third person's property from being stolen.

Steve: Would I be accurate in saying that one of the principal theories of a just war being that it be "waged by a legitimate authority" is difficult for you because you don't see how that meshes with the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself"? Would you disagree with this statement (emphasis by me): "If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's."

I think I would be a lot less like to pop someone to protect property. Probably a little less likely if I'm alone. If my wife, daughter, or grandaughter is with me, that's a whole different world.

GLB: Would you say this sums it up well for you?
- 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 modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

I believe that under certain specific situations, preemptive military actions can be justifiable, but you had better be sure you're right before you do it, or history will judge you harshly if the justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

TAM: What conditions would you say would justify preemptive physical force by a nation that wouldn't apply to an individual?

It seems to me like you're most lining up with the reform Jewish position of just war as it is applied to Iraq and expressed in the article linked below. If you don't mind reading it, would you let me know what you think of it?

If a US citizen kills Osama bin Laden, I don't have a moral or ethical problem with that, in general.

SS: I'm trying to quote multiple people. I hope I got it right. I'm curious why you wouldn't have a problem with it. Is it out of punishment for what he's done? Because of the potential threat he presents? Because of an immediate threat he presents? Because we're in a stated war with him? Because he started a war with us?

[Hoi Polloi]

But.... if you loosen the restrictions on use of deadly force for theft of property, wouldn't you, in effect, be creating a near open season on politicians?

[bnc]

I don't believe there is much of a comparison (reasonable, credible) between "war" and "self-defense"...

Having been a part of both situations, I can clearly define both, with completely different descriptions...

War, being an act of a nation state, either as an aggressor, or a defender against aggression...

Self-Defense, is an individual act whose only possible connection to the previous is a need to defend ones self against deadly threatening aggression...

If you have to have a philosophy behind self defense, in my opinion it is different from person to person...Some similarities may exist, but it is an individual mindset, that has its own rules, tolerances, "line-in-the-sand", equipment, etc etc etc...

Just my opinion...

Thank you for writing my answer for me. In my mind, personal self-defense and war are two entirely different entities, and cannot be conflated. What may be justifiable for one, is not justifiable for the other—most particularly preemptive strikes. If you shoot and kill someone preemptively, you've just committed 1st degree murder....assuming that your victim was not in the act of harming someone else at the time. And if he or she was in the act of harming someone else, you'd better be darn sure that they weren't doing so legitimately, like an undercover cop trying to arrest someone and scuffling with them.

I believe that under certain specific situations, preemptive military actions can be justifiable, but you had better be sure you're right before you do it, or history will judge you harshly if the justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If a just government derives its powers from those it governs, how does it legitimately wield power that no constituent can? In other words, how can you grant someone or something else to do things that you are not allowed to do yourself?

I can't legitimately perform a preemptive strike on some shady looking guy I see on the street. Therefore, I can't legitimately hire/order/whatever someone else to do the same. So I can't grant powers to others that are not mine to grant any more than I can give away property that I don't own in the first place.

If this is not the case, from where do these extraordinary powers come? Are they limited to just war/defense, or can the same principle (whatever that may be) be applied elsewhere?

[Texas Dan Mosby]

The whole concept of "justice" is dynamic, and relative to individual culture. It is ludicrous to believe that there can be ONE uniform code of "justice" that fits EVERY culture.

The best that one can hope for is to live in a culture that shares at least SOME of your values, including your sense of "justice".

"Justice" is what a culture says it is, and enforces.

[The Annoyed Man]

I believe that under certain specific situations, preemptive military actions can be justifiable, but you had better be sure you're right before you do it, or history will judge you harshly if the justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

TAM: What conditions would you say would justify preemptive physical force by a nation that wouldn't apply to an individual?

It seems to me like you're most lining up with the reform Jewish position of just war as it is applied to Iraq and expressed in the article linked below. If you don't mind reading it, would you let me know what you think of it?

I don't line up with that position at all. In fact, after reading the first three paragraphs, I came to the conclusion that the author is an uniformed fool who wrote a paper to justify his own foolishness. My two posts in "that other thread" will tell you what I think about trying to second guess the actions of presidents who initiate war. My statement that "history will judge you harshly if the justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny" in no way reveals my own feelings in the matter. It is simply a statement of fact about human nature. At the end of the day, none of us can "scrutinize," because none of us has the full picture that a president and his advisors would have had in the time and place that the decision to initiate war was made.

This is not when the judgements of history are made. Decades don't suffice to give clarity to the examination. 146 years after the conclusion of the Civil War (or, the "War of Norther Aggression," depending on your mindset), people are still debating the righteousness of either side's cause. And BTW, which side acted preemptively in that conflict?

President Clinton fired cruise missiles into another nation's territory—completely without that nation's acquiescence. That is a preemptive act. One side of the debate on these things might argue that he didn't do enough. Another side might argue that he did too much. I argue that what either side thinks is irrelevant because neither side was there or has full access to all of the information. Here's another example... To this day, people argue about whether or not FDR and his closest advisors colluded to lure Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor. If one can put such foolishness aside for the moment, would it have made any difference? Does anyone truly believe that either Japan or Germany would have permitted U.S. neutrality to continue without Axis provocations?

President Kennedy acted preemptively to blockade Cuba, and to threaten Kruschev and Castro with preemptive military action (possibly nuclear) against Cuba if they did not stand down and remove those missiles. Yes, he gave them a "way out" in which they could save face before their own people. That was a wise act. But he also communicated in no uncertain terms that he would act preemptively to defend his own nation if they did not stand down. Very few people criticize him for that.

This is why I refuse to buy into all or nothing arguments about whether or not preemption is ever justifiable. Sometimes, it plainly is so. Or, at least the threat of it is.