|
If you have studied Just War theory in a political science or sociological context, chances are you were presented with the two major categories of the Just War, "Jus ad Bellum" and "Jus in Bello." You may have even looked into the works of some of the historical political thinkers involved in just war's creation, most notable being Cicero, Augustine of Hippo, and, what I am most interest in, Thomas Aquinas.[i] Although this method may be organized and easy to understand, unfortunately, I would suggest that it over simplifies an almost two millennia long thought process.
The typical critique of Just War Theory is that it ultimately paves the way for more war. It creates highly subjective rules which are used to justify violence and brutality. It is far from me to disagree with this analysis. One can but turn on the news and see the results of "just war," however, as a student of history, the question which plagues me is how would the creators of Just War Theory looked at it? To answer this question, I have decided to focus on the writings of medieval theologian and philosopher Thomas Aquinas to see how just war fits into his worldview. Problems arise in Just War Theory because when modern political thinkers consider the views of Aquinas, they focus on his writings which directly pertain to their interests. For example, at first glance, Aquinas' contribution to Just War Theory is his short chapter concerning war and his argument that war is not always sinful.[ii] However, It seems to me that he has so much more to say about just war when one reads his work with a little more depth.
To make a quick digression, I feel that it is important to note that the lack of consideration of the works of Aquinas in their entirely is completely understandable. In a review of Elonore Stump's book Aquinas, Anthony Kenny briefly summarizes many of the problems in modern scholarship of Thomas Aquinas. Throughout his lifetime, Aquinas composed a vast amount of writings. In total, he wrote well over eight million words in Latin which survive today and modern Latin scholars can only read his Latin about as fast as a medieval scribe would have been able to write them.[iii] It would take much of one's adult life to read all of Aquinas' Latin texts. Furthermore, although Latin words do have English equivalents, many words carry different connotations and subtle meanings in Latin, but not in English.[iv] For example, the Latin word "ius", meaning just or right, had very different concepts attached to it in the mind of Aquinas than it does for a modern audience.
Because of these revelations, it is impossible for one such as myself, who hasn't dedicated my entire adult life to studying Aquinas, to make a clear and thorough conclusion on how Aquinas himself would have viewed a just war. However, it is possible for me, using the writings of experts on Thomist philosophy to suggest new interpretations on what Just War Theory may have meant to one of its founders, Thomas Aquinas.
The primary text one must consider when looking at Aquinas is his, Summa Theologica. When looking at the Summa Theologica, particularly in the context of just war, it is important to consider what the text really is. In short, it is a massive text which contributes to a great multitude of topics, from the divine, man, life, law, justice, virtue, and happiness, just to name a few. In his writing, all of these topics fit together to form deep and complex ideas on reality in general. The very nature of the Summa Theologica makes it very difficult to cherry pick topics which Aquinas addresses without fitting them into the broad contexts in which he rationalizes them. So, it is not enough to just look at his views on war, one must consider his views on mankind, laws, and government and only then does a reasonable picture of how he would imagine war appear.
On this note, we will begin with Aquinas' views on Justice. Far from the modern, largely secular idea of justice, Aquinas sees justice as being deeply connected with the nature of God. For Aquinas, justice isn't something created by man nor is it temporary, but it is an absolute. He quotes Augustine, "justice is love serving God alone"[v], meaning that justice is beyond the best interests of the individual. He later goes on to write, "Just as love of God includes love of our neighbor, as stated above, so too the service of God includes rendering to each one his due.[vi]" This presents justice as something beyond human construction, but as a virtue bestowed upon mankind from the divine. If one acts in a way that is unjust, it is not just an assault on his fellow man, but a sin against God. Furthermore, he includes that justice is giving what is owed to another.
To give what is owed to another, as Eleonore Stump argues, gives Aquinas a decisively egalitarian and staunchly anti-capitalistic world view.[vii] Aquinas believed that Law, more accurately just law, must promote the common good.[viii] He argues, "the further a government recedes from the common good, the more unjust the government is."[ix] Although, like other medieval thinkers, Aquinas is supportive of monarchy, his idea of how a monarch compares to a tyrant is worthy of note. He says that a monarch,
"does not assign more of the good things [of his society] to himself than to others (unless perhaps according to an appropriate ratio based on distributive justice). And so it follows that the ruler works not for his own advantage but for the advantage of others.
And he goes on to say,
Since a ruler works for the multitude, the multitude should give him a reward, namely, honor and glory, which are the greatest goods that can be given by human beings. But if there are some rulers for whom honor and glory are insufficient rewards and who seek wealth [instead], these are unjust and tyrannical."[x]
Furthermore, Aquinas argued at justice in economics is firmly based in economic equality. On a broad note, Aquinas believed that one's material wealth should be based on what one need to survive.[xi] In financial transactions, he believed that no item should be sold for more than it is worth, writing, "to sell a thing for more than it is worth or to buy it for less than it is worth is in itself unjust and unlawful."[xii]
The question remains, what does this have to do with war? In short, it has profound implications for what a just war would have looked like in the mind of Aquinas. In order to be just, a society had to be ruled by a monarch who is undeniably Christ-like in a medieval world view, it had to have complete economic equality, and it had to contribute to the public good. Furthermore, to Aquinas, how just or unjust a society was wasn't up to man to judge, but to God alone, who would reward or punish those involved. So what would a war look like in such a society?
To answer that question, we turn to his views which directly pertain to war. Aquinas argues that war is only just if: it is called and administered by a monarch, it is for a just cause such as correcting wrongs, and if it is done to establish a greater peace or justice.[xiii] This is nothing new to a student of just war, but considering this within the context of what Aquinas' view of justice may have been, it has different connotations. For a just monarch to engage in war, it would have to be to promote equality and the common good of his people, furthermore, the monarch couldn't gain any personal advantage from the war. Also, the war would only be just if it was intended to promote equality and peace towards others.
Also, when Aquinas talks about murder, he suggests that it is unjust to kill in self defense, rather, the extent of one's self defense should be to escape from danger and halt at killing.[xiv] Now, is killing in war any different? Well it is important to note that in medieval society, the line between warfare a police action was none existent. Simply put, they had no permanent police force, as we do today, and what they called acts of war could be what we, in our modern era, call police action. It seems as though, according to Aquinas' account of just war, it is more resembling policing rather than something we would identify as war between nation states.
By no means does this essay presume to fully document the philosophical and theological thoughts of Thomas Aquinas. If anything, my intention is to simply pose more questions concerning the modern interpretation of the Just War Theory by considering the wider world view of one of its creators. As a result, I see it fit to finish my inquiry with some further questions.
While considering Aquinas, to what extent is Just War theory all that different from the Beyond War movement? I mean, Aquinas is clear on his acceptance that "we are one on this world", while it could be reasoned that he would see that "war is obsolete", and his requirement of just intention seems to support the notion that "the means are the ends in the making."
Do we need to reconsider our modern ideas of Just War Theory and compare them with the intentions of those who created it?
How do Aquinas' ideas of justice compare or contrast with modern views of justice? Who is more accurate? Is anyone more accurate?
[i] Brian Orend, War, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2. 2.
[ii] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. http://ccel.org. IIa IIae qq. 40.
[iii] Anthony Kenny, review of Aquinas, by Eleonore Stump, The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 54 No. 216 (2004): 457.
[iv] Kenny, 457.
[v] Summa Theologica, IIa IIae qq. 58.
[vi] Summa Theologica, IIa IIae qq. 58.
[vii] Eleonore Stump, Aquinas (New York: Routledge, 2003), 337.
[viii] Stump, 314.
[ix] Stump, 314.
[x] Stump, 315.
[xi] Stump, 337-338.
[xii] Stump, 318.
[xiii] Summa Theologica, IIa IIae qq. 40.
[xiv] Summa Theologica, IIa IIae qq. 64.
|
