1. It seems that in Just War Theory particulars are subsumed under some general rule. For Just War Theory, for a war to be just it must align to the general rule that usually consists of comparative justice (injustice suffered by one party must outweigh the injustice suffered by another), right intention (force can be used only for a just cause), legitimate authority (public authorities), probability of success (those waging a just war must have a high probability of "winning"), proportionality (the good must outweigh the destruction), and last resort (just war is only an option after other alternatives are exhausted). To subsume particular instances under this general rule is what Kant, in the Critique of Judgment, calls "Determinate Judgment". The criteria of the general rule of Just War seem neat and tidy until you try to apply them to particular instances. The general rule does not easily map onto particular instances.
2. Whose justice are we referring to when we say that something is just or not? Every war has been just, in the sense that everyone who has gone to war has in some way justified it, and has viewed it as just. Did Hitler see WWII as a just war? He was a legitimate authority. He thought that the good (German Lebensraum) would outweigh the bad (Holocaust). There was high probability of "success". He thought that he had the "right intention". He thought it was just. We do not.
Is the Iraq war "just"? For Bush, Iraqi freedom and democracy is a right intention. Bush thought there was a high probability of "winning". He thought the good (freedom and democracy) would outweigh the bad (Hussein's continual reign). Bush is a legitimate authority. Is the war just? Bush thinks so. I do not.
Particular instances are not so easily subsumed to general rules.
3. If war is an option, will all other options be tried first? It seems that if a nation goes to war, then it has not tried all other possible options. If war is a last resort, it seems that in the end we will become frustrated with other options and instead move right to this so-called "last resort" which isn't the failure of all other alternatives but is instead the failure of imagination. It seems to me that Just War theory is not so much concerned with justice, but is instead a theory of just war in the sense of only war.
4. Just War theory seems to employ the escape clause of "if nonviolence fails, try violence." If war is a last resort then one is "still enmeshed in the belief that violence saves" and still trusts domination and violence to bring justice and peace. You cannot fight fire with fire. You cannot fornicate for chastity. You cannot put an end to violence and domination by being violent and domineering. Peace and Justice have never been, nor will ever be, the result of war.
5. Pacifism seems to be a reflective judgment. A reflective judgment for Kant is a general rule that is derived from the particular. In pacifism, a general rule can be perceived in particular instances. We see examples in the particular instances of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. Examples, for Kant, are particular instances that contain in themselves, or is supposed to contain, a concept or a general rule. These instances have exemplary validity. But still, you cannot take these examples that have become general rules and map them onto every particular instance. Ghandi as an example cannot be directly used as a way to inform our response to Hussein's murders in Dujail. This example requires further imagination. A general rule of nonviolence must be reworked when applied to particular instances.
6. Pacifism is not to be confused with passivity. Passivity is not the root word of pacifism. Pacifism is not passifism. Passivity is inactivity. Pacific (the root word of pacifism) is an activity, a making or preserving of peace. Pacifism is probably more active than war. Pacifism is about peaceableness and peaceableness is a way of life. Peace is not the result of war, but is instead the result of peaceableness.
7. Through the prism of war, peace is simply the time between wars. Through the prism of peace, peace is only possible if we live peaceably.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Chris,
Interesting post--especially the tying in w/Kant's definitions. Am I correct to perceive a Hauerwasian inspiration in your conclusions?
In absence of pacifism being put into practice by political/military leaders, let's say, for instance, from the U.S., would you be against the Just War criteria being used as guidelines by military planners/decision-makers in the field (as opposed to being used as an excuse/whitewash)?
I used Kant's definitions of judgment from his third critique on aesthetic judgment because Arendt uses them to discuss political judgment in her Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy and I thought I could take them another direction and use them to discuss Just war and Pacifism.
I have to admit that I haven't really read much Hauerwas, though I know that I should. My inspiration was more from Arendt, Wendell Berry, and Yoder (and the DC comics characters Hawk and Dove).
Would I be against the use of Just War criteria in US military action? Since war is bound to happen between nation states, I think that aligning with the criteria of Just War would be the best way to do it. But I think that, for the most part, this is already done, at least from the perspective of the military planners/decision makers. I don't think that there are radically evil people out there that just want to kill everyone. I think in some way everyone who goes to war can justify the war using the criteria of Just War Theory. Again, whose justice are we talking about?
Countries that go to war are satisfied that they have aligned with the criteria of Just war. If I said that I was a proponent of Just War, my position wouldn't be any different. I don't think any war can be "successful". I think if a country goes to war, then it hasn't tried all of the other alternatives. I don't think the good will outweigh the bad. I don't think any authority is legitimate when it comes to killing and destroying the earth. I don't think war can ever be just.
Dearest Chris,
Thank you for your response.
I had never heard of Hawk and Dove, but, I suppose I liked Marvel comics more, so, I shouldn't be ashamed (that I didn't know who they were). Or should I?
Well, Hawk and Dove originally were brothers who had different views on the use of force. Due to deaths and other comic book things, the people who are Hawk and Dove changed alot over the years. However, Dove is usually portrayed as a wimp or a slacker not an active pacifist and Hawk is strong and aggressive.
They aren't the best DC comic characters, so you shouldn't be too ashamed.
Just as long as you admit that Batman is the greatest superhero of all time.
i like boobies, and war makes boobies
Batman is the greatest.
I watched Žižek! the film last night, which I found more provocative and in line with my own thought than I anticipated. I would recommend it, and I intend on watching it again. Unfortunately I cannot find a transcript online, so I'll have to paraphrase.
In one part of the film, Žižek is talking about 'solutions' for our society. He mentions how people often hope that the 'left' will come up with the solution that will turn around the civilisation and make it good and sustainable and non-exploitative, etc. What Žižek points out is that this is ridiculous. From this site (an interview): "[L]iberation hurts. What I don’t buy from liberals is this idea of, as Robespierre would have put it, “revolution without revolution,” the idea that somehow, everything will change, but nobody will be really hurt. No, sorry, it hurts."
This seems to strike true. Apart from a few instances, such as Gandhi, where liberation was achieved without too much bloodshed, it seems that revolution requires revolution. To change the current global order as radically as it needs to be changed, will require a radical revolution which up-roots the entire thing. Unless there is a sudden economic crash, revolution needs to happen, and even with a sudden crash, there will still be enough big weapons around for a huge amount of exploitation to hang around for many years afterwards. Can internal revolutionary 'war' be justified? Granted, it won't be a good thing, in terms of people dying, extinction of species, habitats being destroyed, etc., but if the alternative is the extinction of all life on earth, is revolutionary 'war' worth it? Or is it impossible to revolt against a power that has a nuke and is willing to use it? I.e. will extinction occur either way?
Oh, and you should write a new post, it's been over a month!
I don't think our only two choices are revolt or nothing will change. And I don't think Zizek would hold that these are our only two choices. In this interview and in The Fragile Absolute he seems to be saying that our society keeps us in check by offering us a "perverted excess of enjoyment and pleasure" that we need to cut off in order to make space for free action. It's this cutting off of this enjoyment that hurts, but it is only then that we can change things.
The question is then, what perverted excess of enjoyment and pleasure is destructive and needs to be cut off?
I don't think that revolution is an option. I don't think that the way to change the global order as radically as it needs to be is through a radical revolution. What revolution has every really changed anything?
I don't think that adding to the problem will eventually help solve the problem. Nor do I think that the ends will justify the means.
I just don't buy that our two choices are revolution (complete with its death and destruction) or extinction.
Chris,
Thanks for the encouragement about my being behind in life. I think. I guess that starts to make up for not telling anyone you were leaving so abruptly at the end of the year! Are you coming to convocation?
I thought of you when I saw the name of the lead actress in The Notebook...
Nicce blog
Thank yyou for sharing this
Post a Comment