St. Augustine: The Theory Of Just War

1344 Words3 Pages

The theory of Just War can be found back over centuries to the philosophy of St. Augustine and beyond. Augustine was one of the first important figures to be challenged by the concerns raised by justified warfare. Christianity, despite significant prosecution, grew out of the Roman Empire, which was Pagan. The evolving Christianity was fundamentally pacifist, giving rise to the refusal of Christians to fight in the Roman army; violence was against Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek, never seek revenge, not to defend themselves and to forgive seventy times seven. Similarly, they could not justify fighting for a pagan empire, and since initially, they were expecting Jesus to return soon, warfare was not considered an important priority. However, when Emperor Constantine became Christian, he made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Up until this point, Christianity remained pacifist. This was the problem that Augustine was faced with; justifying warfare for a Christian empire. Augustine illustrated on the prevailing Roman doctrine of justum bellum and the Old Testament stories of wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as demanded by God. Augustine aimed that fighting on behalf of the Roman Empire was a Christian obligation since the empire was Christian. Augustine maintained that this was fighting on behalf of God against God’s enemies, just as Israel defended itself against God’s enemies in Old Testament times. Augustine’s thinking has backed greatly to the discussion of what makes warfare justifiable right up until the modern day. Since Augustine, two issues which are associated with Just War Theory have been distinguished:
I. Jus ad bullum
II. Jus in bello
Jus ad bellum refers to the circumstances under w...

... middle of paper ...

... Jus post bellum is vital to its ultimate function, which is to eliminate war, or at least reduce the incidence of war in the future. Each approach however has its limits. A Kantian for example might universalize nonviolence when his country is threatened with extermination, whilst a Utilitarian might justify enslaving a human being if it lead to greater net happiness – therefore it is called a swine ethic. In any ethical case however, elements of both approaches are required in order to justify a moral action. Decisions must respect rights while, at the same time, they have to be practical and cannot be seen to make things worse. One might determine that the agent-centered morality of Virtue Ethics provides a better approach to conflict, as it directs the focus away from purposes and penalties and looks at what a righteous person might do in a particular situation.

Open Document