Just War 5 August 2008

The justice of going to war (ius ad bellum) War must be undertaken by proper public authority War must be undertaken as just punishment for wrongdoing War must be undertaken with a right intention

Justice in war (ius in bellum) Principle of innocent immunity Doctrine of double effect Principle of proportionality

What is a proper public authority?

Who determines the justice of a cause?

What is just war theory for? Regulation –As moral restraint –As (weak) legal protection (e.g., the Geneva conventions) Rationalization (Erasmus)

Erasmian pacifism Christian Anti-scholastic Utopian Rhetorical

Some claims of Erasmus War is a perversion of man’s social nature

Some claims of Erasmus Territorial claims are almost always dubious and unjust

Some claims of Erasmus An unjust peace is often, if not always, better than a just war

Some claims of Erasmus Diplomacy and other peaceful means of persuasion are often not given enough time to work.

Just war theory v. pacifism Just war theory –Regulation of war –Does not necessarily rely on religious views Pacifism –Revulsion against war –Tends to rely on religious views

Vitoria and the justification of the conquest of the Americas

Structure of the relectio Justification of the discussion Examination of the claim that the natives had no true title to their possessions Examination of the claim that even if they did have true title, the Spaniards could still have come into possession of them –Inadequate titles –Potentially adequate titles

Natural slavery and the native Americans Potential grounds –Sin –Unbelief –Irrationality –Madness –Natural inferiority

Unjust titles The emperor is Lord of the world (therefore the native princes are his subordinates) The pope granted the Spanish king dominion over the natives Right of discovery Refusal to accept Christianity Sins of the natives (e.g., cannibalism) Not really voluntary choice of the natives Special grant from God

Potentially just titles Protection of the universal right to trade with othersright to trade with others Protection of the right to evangelizeright to evangelize Protection of the converted Protection of the innocent against tyrannyagainst tyranny Genuinely voluntary choice Alliance with some natives against others Near-madness of the natives

A universal right to trade?

A right to evangelize?

“ If the Christian faith be put before the aborigines with demonstration, that is, with demonstrable and reasonable arguments, and his be accompanied by an upright life, well-ordered according to the law of nature (an argument which weighs much in confirmation of the truth), and his be done not once only and perfunctorily, but diligently and zealously, the aborigines are bound to receive the faith of Christ under penalty of mortal sin.”

“I hear of no miracles or signs or religious patterns of life; nay, on the other hand, I hear of many scandals and cruel crimes and acts of impiety. Hence it does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them with such sufficient propriety and piety that they are bound to acquiesce in it.”

Just cause of war “Sufficient demonstration” not yet a cause for war The evangelization of the natives must be actively hindered The natives may have just cause to defend themselves anyway

Humanitarian intervention?

Potentially adequate titles All of these titles must be tempered by a concern for proportion, prudence, and the true benefit of the natives Even if none of these titles hold, the Spaniards might still trade with the natives peacefully and with profit