Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:37:20.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

War and Its Normative Justification: An Example and Some Reflections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Richard Shelly Hartigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the time that man first began recording his excursions into mortal combat with his fellow man, he has evidenced an acute need to justify destruction and killing. This justification has usually taken the form of condensing the reasons for the struggle to a few simple issues which again usually has served to reduce the contention to a straightforward and clear-cut duality between friend and enemy, the enemy being of course wrong, evil or obstructive, while the nonenemy was on the side of right or possessed a destiny which must be fulfilled even at the expense of an otherwise harmless and indifferent adversary. What justified violent action against another group was, therefore, a comparative evaluation in terms of value priorities or normative criteria which would lead to the conclusion that violent action ought to be taken against the other party. The criteria employed can normally be seen to be of two kinds: we might call them internal and external.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 1974 , pp. 492 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 One need only recall the exhortations of Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt to their constituencies to offer no quarter in prosecuting a “just” struggle.

2 The term intra-specific has a special meaning here which will be elaborated below. In this, and the following discussion, it is intended to connote the type of internal species aggression peculiar to homo sapiens, aggression (or aggressivity) of an instinctual variety which abberates to become lethal violence. The literature on this matter of human instinctual aggressivity is varied and contentious. Suffice it to point out here that we are in agreement with Konrad Lorenz and others in ethology and physical anthropology that man is instinctually an aggressive animal.

3 Osgood, Robert E. and Tucker, Robert W., Force, Order and Justice (Baltimore, 1967), p. 285Google Scholar.

4 Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum VI. 10Google Scholar.

5 Note Thomas Aquinas in this regard: “True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good” (Summa Theologica, II-II, 40:1). See also on this point, Hartigan, Richard Shelly, “Saint Augustine on War and Killing: The Problem of the Innocent,” Journal of the History of Ideas, (04–06, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cf., Kennelly, Dolorosa C.S.J., “The Peace and Truce of God” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1963)Google Scholar, and Keen, M. H., The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (Toronto, 1965)Google Scholar.

7 de Vitoria, Francisco, De Indis et De Jure Belli Relectiones, ed. by Nys, Ernest (Washington, D. C, 1917)Google Scholar.

8 A concise description of the generally accepted principles in contemporary just war theory may be found in Joseph, C.McKenna, S. J., “Ethics and War: A Catholic View,” American Political Science Review, LIV (09, 1960)Google Scholar.

9 See Jaspers, Karl, The Question of German Guilt, trans, by Ashton, E. B. (New York, 1961)Google Scholar.

10 Ford, John C. S. J., “The Morality of Obliteration Bombing,” Theological Studies V (09, 1944)Google Scholar.

11 The literature available on this point is too vast to cite here, but see Nagle, William J., ed., Morality and Modern Warfare (Baltimore, 1960)Google Scholar, and O'Brien, William V., Nuclear War, Deterrence and Morality (New York, 1967)Google Scholar for extensive bibliographies.

12 The following discussion is based upon a distillation of numerous theories and data drawn from the fields of psychology, ethology and physical anthropology. The interested reader is referred to the following sources, both for the excellence of exposition and for bibliographical references:

Stoor, , Anthony, , Human Aggression. London: Penguin Press, 1968Google Scholar.

Lorenz, , Konrad, , On Aggression. New York: Bantam Books, 1967Google Scholar.

Fletcher, , Ronald, , Instinct in Man. New York: Schocken Books, 1966Google Scholar.

Leakey, L.S.B., Adam's Ancestors. New York: Harper & Row, 1960Google Scholar.

Tiger, , Lionel, , & Fox, , Robin, , The Imperial Animal. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971Google Scholar.

Though vilified as a dilettante for his lack of academic credentials, this author believes that the works of Robert Ardrey deserve close scrutiny. His most recent work, The Social Contract (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1970),Google Scholar