1. © Michael Lacewing Can war be just? Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

2. ‘Realism’ Relations between states aren’t governed by justice - so the question of a ‘just war’ is beside the point Descriptive realism: states are simply not motivated by justice, but by national interest Prescriptive realism: foreign policy should not be governed by morality/justice, but national interest Why believe realism?

3. Just war? War attacks people’s lives, security, subsistence, peace and liberty –These are bad consequences, and form no part of eudaimonia –Hence war is condemned by utilitarianism and Aristotle in most circumstances –For Kant, the motive will be central Three aspects: –Jus ad bellum – the justice of resorting to war –Jus in bello – just conduct in war –Jus post bellum – justice at the end of war

4. Jus ad bellum For deontologists, it is central that war is in a just cause, and the intention for fighting the war is because it is in a just cause. What is a just cause? –Kant: self-defence of the state –Also defence of others from aggression, which involves the violation of basic rights by use of armed force –Aristotle: the only reason to wage war is to secure peace

5. Jus ad bellum War must be declared by a legitimate state. –A legitimate state must be recognized as legitimate by its citizens and by other states; –it must not violate the rights of other legitimate states; and –it must respect the basic rights of its citizens –Kant: any state that declares war without the consent of its citizens uses its citizens as a means to an end

6. Jus ad bellum Utilitarians focus on the consequences, so –The declaration of war must be a last resort. –The state can foresee a probability of success in resolving the conflict through war. –The response of declaring war must be proportionate, i.e. the good that can be secured through war must outweigh the evil that will most likely occur.

7. Jus in bello Primary focus is on how the enemy is engaged and treated Only combatants may be targeted. –Deontology: it is wrong to intend the deaths of non- combatants –Utilitarianism: minimize suffering. Armed forces must use proportional force, i.e. proportional to achieving the end.

8. Jus in bello Other deontological principles (or Mill’s theory of rights) –No weapons or means of war that are ‘evil in themselves’ are permitted. –Armed forces are not justified in breaking these rules in response to the enemy breaking these rules.

9. Jus post bellum The rights whose violation justified the war should be secured. Proportionality governs both jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and so it should govern the peace settlement as well. It should be reasonable, not a form of revenge. –This is utilitarian. A Kantian might argue that aggressors must be punished. The discrimination between combatants (including political leaders) and non-combatants still applies when seeking punishment.

10. Pacifism War is always unjust, and therefore always wrong. –Strong: in principle –Weak: in fact Utilitarian: Aggression by a state does not need to be resisted by war, as there are other means, e.g. civil disobedience –But these methods may only work if the aggressor is responsive to justice

11. Pacifism Deontological: War always involves a violation of moral duties –Is it a violation of one’s duty to kill someone if you are resisting their aggression? In practice: No war has met the conditions of ‘just war theory’.