FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Just War Pacifism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
From the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/

A third sort of contingent pacifism will appeal to the just war theory and claim that a given war is unjust according to this theory. As John Rawls says of what he calls “contingent pacifism,” “the possibility of a just war is conceded but not under present circumstances” (Rawls 1971, 382). This idea is closely related to “just war pacifism” as developed in the last couple of decades by critics of the just war tradition: just war pacifism maintains that modern wars are not fought according to the standards of the just war theory because, for example, they make use of aerial bombardment and other means that do not adequately discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Such a claim may result in a nearly absolute proscription against war under present circumstances. And it may contain an absolute prohibition against certain sorts of war, such as nuclear war. Most so-called “just war pacifists” are contingent pacifists in this sense: they object to the way modern wars are fought.

With the just war theory in mind, contingent pacifism may focus either on the basis for war (as in the just war idea of jus ad bellum), on the way that the war is being fought (as in the just war idea of jus in bello), or on the expected outcome of the war (as in the idea of jus post bellum). With regard to jus ad bellum, contingent pacifists may reject the legitimacy of the authority who is fighting, they may claim that war is not being fought as a last resort, or they may deny that the war is being fought for a just cause. With regard to jus in bello, contingent pacifist may worry that innocent noncombatants are being harmed or that soldiers are employing means mala in se (such as rape or torture). Finally, with regard to jus post bellum, contingent pacifists may object to wars that will undermine long-term peace, justice, and stability.
Pacifism is not a catholic idea it's actually against catholic teachings. What makes a war just is not if non  combatants get killed or not that is a completely seperete issue. But pacifists will belive what they want because pacifism actually is a religous ideal that is opposed to catholic teaching and thus the catholic faith

(01-20-2011, 08:36 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]Pacifism is not a catholic idea it's actually against catholic teachings. What makes a war just is not if non  combatants get killed or not that is a completely seperete issue. But pacifists will belive what they want because pacifism actually is a religous ideal that is opposed to catholic teaching and thus the catholic faith

Just war pacifism doesn't reject any Catholic teaching, as far as I am aware. It doesn't deny the just war doctrine. It simply says that actual wars which live up to the criteria of the just war doctrine are very rare if not practically non-existent.
That's a bogus statment. Take a look at sacred history and hebwritings of thebplpes as well as saints on it.
The hold more cloister hen Rawls for Catholics anyway. There is Holy war and then there is war whch is either jus or not. Here is no need to even consider pacifism which is contrary to or faith.
The criteria for jiatvwar is not hw many nn combatentz will die.  It is our dut as Catholics to stand up for virtue and good against evil. The death toll due to it is a seperate matter
for Catholics anyway
The personal views of the saints with regard to the justice of a war or the lack thereof are not binding upon the faithful. It is not contrary to the faith to hold that most wars do not meet the established criteria for a just war.
That is no pacifism. Again pacifism is contrary to the faith. Why do most wars not meet the criteria? Thas the question
(01-20-2011, 05:39 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Just war pacifism doesn't reject any Catholic teaching, as far as I am aware. It doesn't deny the just war doctrine. It simply says that actual wars which live up to the criteria of the just war doctrine are very rare if not practically non-existent.

I actually think we can find justified, albeit unintentional, killing of non-combatants in pre-Vatican II theology manuals (such as Jone).  I'll have to look.

To say that there are no conditions today which meet just war criteria is to say that no nation poses a grave threat to other nations, and that no grave evil is being done which would warrant intervention by another country.

The article even says that JWPs are critical of the tradition, which suggests they may misunderstand it or its proper application.  Why have a theory that can never be used?  JWT becomes an ideal that's never actually realized, and so every war is unjust, despite the criteria for JWT being met (objectivity is lost). Pacifists hate war at all costs, and paying lip service to JWT doesn't appear to change that.
(01-20-2011, 05:58 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]The personal views of the saints with regard to the justice of a war or the lack thereof are not binding upon the faithful. It is not contrary to the faith to hold that most wars do not meet the established criteria for a just war.


It may not be contrary to the faith to hold that "most wars" do not meet.....


but that is insane since usually some one attacks someone else whether the reason is just or unjust....if unjust, then the side attacked has a just war that they fight against an aggressor....if just then the attacking side has a just fight against those they attacked....so you paciphizm won't fly
Sounds like a bunch of tree hugging hippie crap to me.
(01-20-2011, 07:14 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like a bunch of tree hugging hippie crap to me.

What an excellent argument!
Pages: 1 2 3