The Morality of Nuclear War

Extract

Objector, with Fr Illtud Evans, O.P., as Moderator

moderator: I think it may be useful to begin our proceedings by saying a word or two about the form they are going to take. Tonight’s discussion is described as a ‘Medieval Disputation’, which may seem to suggest that its interest is only historical: the subject, I think you will agree, could hardly be more up-to-date. It is true that the Disputation was the normal method of formal argument in medieval universities—for that matter it still takes place every week as an ordinary academic exercise in every theological college of the Order of Preachers, to which Order, tonight’s disputants belong. The procedure is that a thesis is proposed, its terms of reference explained and an argument in defence of it is indicated. This is the work of the defender. The objector attacks the thesis in strict logical form, and so the argument proceeds—the defender conceding what he must and denying what he can. And all this is done with a strict regard for the rules of logical argument. At a later stage informal objections are put forward, and once more the defender’s business is to inspect them in terms of his thesis.

It is important to remember that a Disputation is not a debate. This is not a matter of two people arguing in defence of personal opinions: you must not suppose, for instance, that Fr Ian Hislop thinks that atomic war is justifiable and is prepared to go to any lengths in saying so. Nor is a Disputation a dispute: the courtesies that traditionally govern it are genuine and are a reminder that the passions are not meant to be engaged in objective reasoning.