English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
The just war theory aims to condense moral principles into guidelines applicable to warfare. Its objective is to determine the moral justification for supporting a specific conflict. From a Christian perspective, this involves applying biblical concepts to establish practical standards. While the notion of a “just war” is not exclusive to Christianity and was prevalent in Greek and Roman societies, its application is significantly influenced by spirituality. In pagan contexts, a just war often involved expansion and revenge as acceptable motives. Conversely, certain faiths like Jainism advocate for absolute pacifism, while others like Islam were founded by leaders who frequently engaged in wars of aggression. Biblical Christianity offers a more nuanced approach to war compared to many other religions.
In essence, just war theory asserts that armed conflict is morally permissible only as a last resort, authorized by a legitimate government, for ethical reasons, and employing moral methods. Like many real-world issues, the determination of whether a specific conflict meets the criteria of a just war is always open to debate. It is crucial to differentiate between the concept of a just war and that of a holy war. Just war theory does not endorse the idea of holy wars, a stance also supported by the Bible.
The Christian application of just war theory is rooted in various scriptural principles: humans possess inherent value “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27), yet they are also inherently sinful “as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” (Romans 3:10). God specifically instituted human government to maintain order.
It is essential to uphold order and justice (Romans 13:1-5;1 Peter 2:14). Humanity as a whole, and specifically Christians, have a moral duty to strive for a fairer society (Proverbs 21:3;Micah 6:8;Matthew 5:13-16). However, this responsibility does not justify resorting to violence to “promote” the faith “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”, (John 18:36). Additionally, God’s command against killing pertains to murder “Thou shalt not kill.”, (Exodus 20:13), not to capital punishment “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”, (Genesis 9:6), justified warfare “He teacheth my hands to war, So that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.”, (Psalm 18:34), or legitimate self-defense “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”, (Luke 22:36). Simultaneously, the Bible condemns cruelty, revenge, and hatred (Romans 12:19;Proverbs 20:22;Galatians 5:19-24).
The most widely accepted interpretation of just war theory is based on these biblical principles.Deals, simplified into five major points. According to just war theory, any conflict not meeting all of these conditions is considered “unjust” and morally unacceptable. It is crucial to emphasize that this framework cannot eliminate all potential controversy. There will always be varying opinions on whether a specific war—or any war—satisfies these criteria.
The five primary requirements of a “just war” are as follows:
1. A just war is declared by a legitimate government. In accordance with just war theory, independent individuals or groups are not authorized to act as vigilantes, assuming the right to engage in aggressive warfare. This also rules out government actions that exceed established regulations; for example, if a national leader were to disregard their country’s laws when ordering an attack, or if a military leader orchestrated a coup and immediately launched an assault on another nation. Additionally, war—including the intent to attack—must be formally and officially announced before a nation enters into hostilities. This allows for further opportunities to resolve a dispute, alerts potentially affected civilians, and compels the government to justify the use of violence in advance.
2. A just war is a measure of last resort. Before resorting to violence, a nation must exhaust all possible avenues to achieve its objectives through peaceful means. This could involve diplomacy, economic or legal measures, and so on. This is a fundamental principle of just war theory: war arises only when all other alternatives have failed. It is not merely one choice among many. Consequently, the government should strive to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion.
3. A just war is waged for a righteous cause. The ultimate aim of the war must be ethically sound. Objectives such as liberating people from death and persecution or halting another nation’s aggression may align with this criterion. Conversely, seeking to acquire more territory or to retaliate against another nation for a perceived offense would constitute an unjust objective.
4. A just war pursues prudent objectives
Warfare is less justifiable when it has little to no chance of succeeding. This requirement is meant to balance the concept of a “just cause.” Grandiose ideas can’t be claimed as valid reasons for bloodshed. A small nation is unwise to initiate an attack on a military superpower—the attempt is almost certain to fail, rendering the resulting chaos nearly meaningless. Similarly, a war cannot be justified unless its objectives, even if noble, are proportionate to its toll of death and destruction. For instance, aiming to enhance another nation’s educational system is not a morally valid justification for entering into open warfare.
A just war employs moral means. According to just war theory, honorable ends or objectives do not justify any and all methods to achieve triumph. In essence, the ends do not justify the means. This implies that a just war is limited to proportional levels of violence and refrains from excessive or brutal use of force. This principle also entails making an effort to minimize civilian casualties, unnecessary destruction, or actions that would unreasonably impact those not involved in the conflict. “Moral means” encompasses aspects such as the treatment of captured soldiers and civilians and endeavors to reconcile post-conflict.
Nearly every violent conflict in human history has been deemed “justified” by the initiating side. Clearly, this assertion is frequently untrue. Nevertheless, a valid moral principle is not nullified due to lack of adherence. On the contrary, instances of wars fought unjustly demonstrate how just war theory can mitigate violence rather than promote it.
Just war theory recognizes that war is not a positive occurrence—the five requirements are specifically designed to prevent any violence and chaos unless absolutely necessary. In essence, just war theory views war as something regrettable and disagreeable, even amidst the turmoil. Compassionate and merciful treatment of adversaries is particularly an illustration of how Christian ethics have impacted just war theory.
A common misconception regarding just war theory is that Christianity uses Israel’s battles in the Old Testament as excuses for modern attitudes toward war. Certainly, broad principles can be drawn from God’s use of warfare in the Old Testament. Some are, indeed, reflected in the modern concept of just war «When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. », (Deuteronomy 20:10,19) «When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege: », (Deuteronomy 20:10,19). However, Scripture is clear that Israel’s war in Canaan was not a model for future conquest «Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people. », (Deuteronomy 9:6); neither Judaism nor Christianity has attempted, at large, to apply the conquest of Canaan in that way. Similarly, from a Christian perspective, there is never justification for war or violence in an attempt to promote, expand, or spread the gospel (John 18:36;2 Corinthians 10:4). Such efforts are inherently contradictory to the faith.
Views on just war theory are closely linked to a person’s perspective on self-defense. When can a Christian use violence to defend oneself? Just war theory teaches that, beyond a personal, defensive level, the involvement of government is an absolute necessity for justifiable fighting.
Just war theory is by no means the “ofThe official stance of Christianity on this matter is not explicitly defined. Nevertheless, it is the prevailing perspective observed across Christian denominations. In biblical Christianity, the just war theory is more inclined to be opposed by those advocating for a pacifist understanding of Scripture. There are scarce Christian factions that openly endorse aggressive or predatory warfare. The widespread adoption of the just war theory within Christianity is rooted in the core belief of the theory: that violence might be required in certain circumstances, but solely as a final option.
