Is War Ever Justified?

There are many ongoing armed conflicts that are taking place around the world and which continue to result in violent death, and the most recent conflict is the 2013 South Sudanese political crisis in Africa, South Sudan where there have been over 1000 deaths in this year alone. The most devastating conflict is the War in Afghanistan, which began in 1978 and still continues today, resulting in 1,405,111-2,084,468 deaths. These figures are devastating and shocking, however in some cases is it right to risk the lives of thousands and go to war?

There are three main approaches to issues surrounding war and peace: the just war theory (the belief war is morally justified is it meets certain criteria), realism (the belief ethics has nothing to do with war and it’s often necessary to promote security, survival and economic growth) and pacifism (the belief that all violence is wrong). The just war theory is split into two questions: when is it right to fight? (Jus ad bellum) and how should war be fought? (Jus in bello). For a war to be considered just, there are six conditions which must be met in order for this to happen. First, war must be in a just cause, meaning the war is only just if it is fought for a reason that is justified and that carries moral sufficient weight – the just cause is to put right a wrong or to prevent a wrong for happening. Secondly, War must be declared by a competent authority, meaning only a war declared by a government/ruler of the state with the legitimate authority to declare war can be a just war. Thirdly, there must be a just intention which is as just as the cause i.e. a war should not be fought with the deliberate intention of killing a country’s leader or in a spirit of hatred or revenge. Forth, there must be a comparison of justice on both sides so both sides must be compared and have a just reason to fight, fifth, war must be a last resort; so must only be resulted to after all other negotiation had failed. Lastly, there should be a reasonable likelihood of success – there should be a better state of affairs after the war than there were before.

There are also criteria that must be met when fighting the war itself, there should be a reasonable proportion between the injustice being fought and the suffering that will be inflicted, the cause of justice cannot be upheld by unjust means. Robert Holmes wrote ‘unless one can justify the actions necessary to waging war, one cannot justify the conduct of war’. Also, this proportionality must be exercised meaning the use of weapons must be proportional to the threat and only minimum force should be used. There must be fair treatment of prisoners of war, no reprisals and those at war must have an obligation to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate targets of destruction and between innocent civilians and those involved in waging the war ‘an act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas, along with their populations is a crime against God and man himself’ The Vatican statement (Article 80).

However, absolute pacifists will disagree with this theory, because they believe it is never right to kill another human being, no matter what the consequences of not doing so might be, even the loss of life. Even though this may be a good and kind attitude to have, there are certain situations I think this could fail. For example if there was an intruder in your house threatening the lives of your loved ones and yourself, if you had the opportunity to kill or hurt the intruder in order to save your family, would you? Even if you were a pacifist, surely the love you have for your family would resort you to attempting to stop harm coming to them? Or even if you saw someone in the street being mugged or harmed in some way, surely helping the person by resulting to violence may be the lesser of two evils? Other pacifists may say that Jesus preached a better way to respond then violence, and to turn the other cheek when something hurts us so to use an alternative means to make peace. However Jesus at one point took his anger out on the temple, so he used violence for something which didn’t even have a just cause, who is to say that we can’t do that too?

Overall, war is something which has been around for so long, and we live in an unjust world. Trying to get rid of war is like trying to get rid of sin – it just will not happen. This means that war must somehow be justified, if it will improve things in the future, surely this must be the best thing to do. Jesus never sent soldiers away from John the Baptist, he just told them not to miss use their power, so surely if soldiers have good intentions and do not miss use their powers, then war is justified. Pacifists may say that we must have the courage and strength to behave in the way you believe and that it’s better to kill than to kill; however if you were ever in a life or death situation, would you really be able to stand there and take the harm coming to you? This is why, in my opinion, I feel that war can be justified.

KD

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics is a Christian ethical theory that was developed by Joseph Fletcher. Stating that other moral principles can be overruled in some situations if love is the final consequence of an action. Situation ethics underlines the importance of the individual in making moral decisions. Joseph Fletcher developed the idea of making a moral decision for a particular situation. He wrote the book 'Situation Ethics' in 1996 explaining his theory. He stated that it was better that a person made a decision on what moral course of action they should follow rather than follow a set of unwritten rules they hardly know anything about. He believed that God doesn't want us to follow and conform to rules like a robot.

An important concept of situation ethics is that it contains no universal/ moral rules or rights. This states that situation ethics are not laws and do not have to be continuously followed. The issue of right and wrong means that there is an increase in the situation being relative. What may be seen as the most loving outcome in a situation may not have the same outlook in different religions and cultures. This however is helpful to some extent. The lack of universal guidelines reinforces that the theory is more flexible. This is an important concept because it can apply to a wide range of situations in various parts of the world. Such as how different cultures may have guidelines that they ask others to abide by to respect their culture when entering said country. The loving thing would be to abide by there request but it could also be seen as loving to make others abide by the ways of western cultures also. 

Another important concept of situation ethics is that it is takes into consideration personalism. This states that man comes first in any situation and rules follow after. It details how it is more important to do right by other people than to follow religious rules at the expense of people. This gives a realistic feel to the theory and also provides the chance of each situation to become personal. Theories such as utilitarianism are developed on a broader level and do not depict how each situation is different, includes different aspects and emotions/feelings towards that particular situation. Rules cannot always work in every situation some situations such as the aborting of a foetus that was conceived out of rape. In some countries rules say that abortions are not legalised. The loving thing to do would be to abort the foetus as the birth could cause psychological damage to the mother or worse the child could grow up receiving the same psychological damage. The importance of personalism is shown in this example and how rules being placed second can be more beneficial. 

Situation ethics carefully fits in with the teachings of Jesus. The phrase “love thy neighbour” carefully depicts situation ethics in a biblical way. Jesus constantly went against the following of rules to help another being during his time on earth. To and extent he did the most loving thing to do by doing this which is what situation ethics revolves around. Positivism is a positive choice made during a situation that freely chooses to believe in agape love. Agape love being love that is unconditional and the word agape is Greek for love. Christian teachings and Christian love link into situation ethics to assist in making situational decisions where faith is rooted into for Christians but it also allows room for secular beings to make a decision. Following the teachings of Jesus is an important concept of situation ethics because it shows closely how people of the Christian faith want to try as hard to stay in line with what God has set for them such as the rule “love thy neighbour”. 

Another key feature of Situation ethics are the six working principles. The working principles are; Love only is always good, Love is the only norm, Love and justice are the same, love is justice distributed, Love is not liking and always wills the neighbour’s good, Love is the only means. These principles contribute as an important feature because Love is intrinsically valuable, it has inherent worth. Love is good. Nothing else has intrinsic value but ‘it gains or acquires its value only because it happens to help people (thus being good) or to hurt people (thus being bad)’. A lie is not intrinsically wrong. It is wrong if it harms people, but may sometimes be right. For the situationist, what makes the lie right is its loving purpose it assesses the outcome of the action as the moral worth, which means that anything may be done as long as it brings about the most loving outcome.

Although containing many key and important feature there are many criticism which undermine the theory. 

One way in which the concepts are undermined is that because there are no moral or universal laws it is hard to define love. Each individual would have their own definition of what love is and what the most loving thing to do would be. The use of a universal law allows a way for everyone to be able to communicate and decide how to act during a situation that is more suitable for the majority of society. Also situation ethics is an unprincipled relativist system; it allows room for any action to occur because of how subjective the theory is people would naturally disagree about it.

Situation ethics is also a consequentialist theory. The difficulty that occurs when trying to predict the future can cause some trouble. Nobody can exactly tell the future and the outcome could change for any situation because we cannot define what may happen. It is also unreliable to base a decision on love because everyone’s view can be different. This critiques how situation ethics involves Personalism.

In situation ethics you treat every situation differently, taking no account of previous experience. Some have said that this means that you cannot hold a consistent moral approach and you are in danger of missing the bigger picture. William Barclay says that we need the guidance of law and an understanding of past experiences. Barclay also said that Fletcher was rather optimistic about human nature. Saying that if we all made our own moral decisions we would essentially be selfish. This undermines situation ethics because instead of religiously following the rules of love some people may start to follow rules.

Also the Christian concept in situation ethics may not appeal to everybody. People such as atheists would maybe disagree with how the teachings of Jesus entwine with situation ethics. Their faith or lack of may have them believe in something different and could be why it may not appeal to everybody. This critiques how the theory can apply to everyone.

Although there are many important concepts of situation ethics such as, how it incorporates the teachings of Jesus and how universal laws are also not incorporated into the theory. All these important concepts contribute to making situation ethics a theory that can be used in the 21st century because of its more updated concepts unlike theories such as utilitarianism.However, the theory has many critiques which could allow the theory to not apply to a variety of people. Situation ethics can be seen as a rule and rules/ laws can always be broken. There is nothing to say that people should break the theory. Also the theory allows people to put themselves before and this can cause people to be selfish and go against the theory.

SO

Where was God on 9/11?

On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

Many people may say that God caused the pain and suffering brought about on this day, because how could an all-loving and all-powerful God cause this much hurt to so many people? Ending the lives of many and destroying happiness for all their families and the entire world. This was one of the major events to have happened in our lifetime and people believe that if God did exist, this kind of suffering would never happen.

On the other hand, if we look deeper we can see evidence of God helping the people he could in this situation. For example, there were four flights on this tragic day which altogether could accommodate 1,000 people, yet there were only 226 people on board. This suggests he was discouraging people from getting on the planes they were due to catch, and therefore showing his loving nature by saving the lives of others. Also, the people on board the plane somehow had the ability to stay calm through the whole tragedy, and we know this because not one of the people who were called by a loved one on the planes said they sensed any kind of distress or panic. The peace the passengers felt must have come from somewhere and only someone like God could have given them this kind of strength to stay calm in their final minutes. Also, on one of the planes the passengers overpowered the hijackers, so God must have helped them through this and given them the courage to be so brave.

Other events which happened on this day suggests God was doing all he could to prevent people being hurt. Things which wouldn’t normally happen e.g. 30,000 people who normally worked in the twin towers were not at their desks that morning happened, here are a few reasons why: the head of one company survived 9/11 because he took his son to playschool,  another man is alive because it was his turn to bring donuts, another lady was late because her alarm clock didn't go off on time, one spilled food on her clothes and had to take time to change, and the most baffling one is a man who walked to work, as normal and on time however was wearing new shoes and developed a blister and therefore stopped to get a plaster; which is why he is alive today. Too many incidents happened on this day for it to have just been a coincidence because when all the evidence comes together, it makes sense to say that God was with them helping them survive. More things like unexpected traffic which made people late for work and meetings scheduled elsewhere makes us believe God was there helping us all along.

The twin towers both stood up for half an hour which gave people on the lower floors time to escape from the burning building, and when the towers finally fell, they fell inwards which saved many people also. When this did happen, he was with all the people trying to help the victims. The firefighters, the police officers and the passers-by who got involved to try and help anyone they could; God gave them the strength to do this. So, on 9/11 God was everywhere, helping those who were affected by the 19 people who decided to turn away from him and doing everything he could to save lives.

 Now if you’re ever stuck in traffic, miss the bus or even get up late; the things that normally would annoy you, think to yourself ‘this is where God wants me to be at this very moment’. Next time something small makes you late or annoys you, remember God is there watching over you and everything is happening for a reason.

KD

Is evil and suffering really a challenge to our faith?

Is evil and suffering really a challenge to our faith?

Every single person on this earth, at some point in their lives will have experienced some form evil and suffering. Whether it is the loss of a loved one, or not achieving a mark you revised hard for on a test. Of course, everybody’s situations are different, leaving some people to possibly think, ‘why me and not him/her?’ or ‘what did I do to deserve this?’ however as Theists we know that we are not alone when we are faced with evil and suffering and can always turn to God which can act as a reassurance to us.

However, evil and suffering has been known to be one of the biggest challenges to belief in God and is described as ‘the rock of Atheism’ as it seems to contradict the characteristics we associate with God. When we ask ourselves the question ‘Is there a greater challenge to belief in God than evil?’ we can seem to struggle to find something else that challenges God’s existence this much. Many would say that if God was omnipotent, he should have had the power to create a world in which evil and suffering does not take place. If God was omnibenevolent, shouldn’t he love us too much to put us through the harshness evil can bring to our everyday lives? If God is omniscient, shouldn’t he know evil and suffering was about to take place and therefore stop it? These questions are serious challenges to belief in God as we refer to God as a loving father therefore he shouldn’t put us through suffering.

JL Mackie even produced an ‘inconsistent triad’ which states that we can have two of the following; God’s omnipotence, God’s omnibenevolence or evil and suffering. Considering that we know evil and suffering exists, this would cancel out one of God’s characteristics and if God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, is he really a God worth worshipping?

Even historic events such as 9/11 seem to work against the existence of God ‘In less than two hours Aquinas’ proofs of God were blasted, seared, choked with arid smoke and snuffed out forever along with more than 3000 lives now reduced to power in the rubble of ground zero’ Ross Mackechnie (a 9/11 survivor) as people could not cope with the idea that a loving God would let this happen and take the lives of so many.

However, I believe that instead of looking at evil and suffering as a challenge to theism, why do we not see it as something that enhances and strengthens our faith?

Using the Free Will Defence, which is taken from the fact both Iraneus’ and Augustine’s theodicies contained the concept that evil came from humans misusing their free will; we can strengthen our belief in God when faced with evil and suffering. Many people think of God as a responsible parent; one who wouldn’t let you stay out until 3am or wouldn’t let you do wreck less things without some form of punishment or lessons learned. I strongly believe that God helps us to learn from our mistakes: We would never touch a hot iron again if when we did the first time we got badly burnt? Or we would never drink heavily again if the first time we did this we got ourselves into a bad state? So it is in fact possible that God allows us to suffer so we can learn lessons and take something positive away from a bad situation. It all comes down to the idea that God does not give us a sheltered life, as we have to grow as people and to do this we must make mistakes.

‘If large scale horrors were not allowed, basically we would have a ‘toy world’ where things matter, but not much. It would be like an over protective parent’ Swinburne.

In response to Swinburne’s idea of a ‘toy world’ which I have to agree with, I believe that our accomplishments in life would not be so great if we didn’t have to suffer a bit for them. Take GCSE and A Level results for example, I know that when I received my GCSE Grades, I was a lot more thankful and happy for myself because I know I worked hard for many months to achieve them. God wants us to grow and develop as humans, not as people who are simply programmed to love him and have no free will, therefore we all experience suffering to actually bring us closer to God. If God created a world in which we were forced to love and obey him, would we really be free? God doesn’t want this sort of life for us; he wants us to grow and appreciate things more when they are not just given to us. Take climbing a mountain for example; would we enjoy the view as much if we didn’t struggle to get there? Would we still find the view breath taking if we flew to the top by helicopter? By allowing us to suffer God can actually give us a greater sense of accomplishment when we do tasks that require hard work and perseverance. God teaches us to work hard for things that we want giving humans a lot more substance that what we would have if things in life were just given to us with no hard work.

However, the Free Will Defence is not an excuse for evil; it simply states why it is there. Evil is not inflicted upon us for no reason. God gave us Free Will so we could choose to either follow him or turn away from him and can make decisions for ourselves with the idea that the wrong decisions teach us lessons; allowing us to grow as people. One can take evil and suffering and use that as a reason to not believe in God, however I think that evil and suffering can actually bring us closer to God and strengthen our relationship with him.

KF.