This Month's Colloqium

Colloquia Archive

The human race has a number of features. Individual societies on this planet have particular characteristics, but all cultures and peoples share at least a few similarities. We all have some form of religion or ethical belief structure. We all create and use a type of government--often utilitarian in nature--for protection and decision-making. We all participate in war. Arguably, there is not one nation or organized society of people that has not fought in a war at some point in history. However, most people regardless of nationality strive for some sort of peace. If peace is not possible, then war may be a solution and will bejustified by the culture and its ethics. One particular justification of war in the Western World is the Just War Theory (JWT). The JWT is predominantly the Christian and Western World set of rules and regulations one should follow when choosing to go to war.

The basic premise behind the Just War Theory is that war itself is immoral and sinful, however, with regard to certain situations war can be reasoned legitimately less sinful than the actions of the antagonist or maleficent ideals that war would defend against. Yoder outlines "the simplest criteria" that the JWT uses to determine whether war, or a particular war is justifiable, as follows (Yoder 18):

1. The authority waging the war must be legitimate.
2. The cause being fought for must be just.
3. The ultimate goal must be peace.
4. The subjective motivation must not be hatred or vengefulness.
5. War must be the last resort.
6. Success must be probable.
7. The means used must be indispensable to achieve the end.
8. The means used must be discriminating quantitatively (to do no more harm than they prevent) and qualitatively (to avoid innocent casualties).
9. The means used must respect the provisions of international law.

The JWT is normally applied as a tradition. The criteria listed above are the theoretical topics of Just War consideration, but it does not function as a checklist. Those making the decisions about war do not use a list such as this one to determine all of their specific motives and goals. The JWT is not so "black and white". Rather, like a tradition, this criterion is regarded more or less like a "general understanding" or belief about what justifies war. The criteria reference ideas that leaders should keep in mind when making decisions about fighting. If these criteria functioned as a theory instead of a tradition, they would be a specific procedural formula for the justification of war. Yoder, however, recognizes that even though the JWT is applied as a tradition, it is still defined like a theory. It provides a systematic way to recognize and explicate the ethics (or lack there of) of violent circumstances. Though Yoder himself claims that it would be more accurate to refer to the JWT as a tradition he still analyzes it as a theory, because the ideas or "rules" themselves (which are the base of the tradition) are vague and easily manipulated. If one is to uphold the Just War Tradition, from its theoretical basis, then Yoder insists that four particular challenges be applied (Yoder 19):

1. Are the concepts and terms defined in such a way that effective application can reliably follow when the generally stated criteria encounter veal cases?
2. What are the social prerequisites for the criteria to operate? What kind of institutional form and what decision-making instruments would be demanded?
3. What are the psychological requisites? What kinds of people are ready to make moral judgments independently of authorities? How do we produce such people?
4. What are the moral requirements? What are the moral prerequisits for individuals and groups to be willing to run those risks [of war] or consent to those sacrifices [from honest JWT application]?

Two major historical events, according to Yoder, play a significant role in JWT inconsistencies. The Protestant Reformation contributed to state dominance over the church and religion. Because of this, the power of the church was limited and more easily controlled by a secularized political structure. With the onset of the Enlightenment countries and their governments became even less connected with the religious beliefs and ideals that at one time had much more authority. Because of the Enlightenment, governments were not even "bound" by the formerly influential religions. It is true that both the Reformation and the Enlightenment upheld ethical systems with respect to politics, but the religiously based ethics that organized the JWT were no longer the necessary principles that governments during these later eras wished to use to justify their own wars. Yoder here is not attempting an evaluation of these two historical periods; his point is to show that without the ethical basis of the religiously founded JWT, what is "just" can now be defined in whatever manner the political structure deems worthy without any religious concern. The restraints of the JWT are more easily weakened since the religious foundation in which they were formed no longer agrees with the national interest foundation for political decision making.

Likewise, in the past century war has changed in ways that Yoder believes make the application of the JWT even more impractical. Now war is fought between entire nations, to the extent that everyone--civilians as well as professional soldiers--feels the effects of the systematized violence. Even those who aren't fighting or being attacked contribute economically to help pay the millions and billions of dollars that go support the war effort. There is no longer a swath of land where two armies meet and do battle, now battlefields are the cities and towns where the innocent live. The fight comes to the home in the contemporary world. Scientific and technological progress has allowed for the creation of hellish weapons that can level cities, or possibly not even damage a single structure; yet poison the skin and lungs of hundreds of thousands of people. Currently, only two atomic weapons have been used in war, but those weapons--devastating as they were more than half a century ago--have but a fraction of the annihilating power that our modern nuclear missiles and bombs carry.

Of course, being Mennonite, Yoder is sure to come under some scrutiny about his approach to war-justification with regards to his pacifist bias. However, Yoder answers this by arguing that many automatically assume for themselves that nonviolence will not work, but never fully attempt it. He claims that people who prefer fighting to the contrary either have not tried or have been lax with nonviolent measures.

To sum up, John Howard Yoder in his book When War is Unjust, claims, "lf the tradition which claims that war may be justified does not also admit that it could be unjustified, the affirmation is not morally serious."(Yoder 82) Yoder maintains an open mind about the JWT. True, he concentrates on its inconsistencies, yet he still acknowledges the reverse argument toward nonviolent action and/or pacifism. To this he says, "Nonviolent action on behalf of justice is no automatic formula with promise of success: but neither is war. After all, at least half of the people who go to warfor some cause deemed worthy of it are defeated. "(Yoder 77)

According to Yoder, the JWT is considered an effectual system or tool, but technically the criteria are too broad. A theory should be more specific if a tradition is to honestly follow it. Reality in this case has not a set standard of justice, not everyone can agree on what the meaning of justice is. Since there is no set value or rule that all who fight would agree on, the JWT rules break down to merely vague postulates--which leaves them open to be as warped or compassionate as whatever mind controls them. Yoder may not be able to prove war wrong, but he does offer substantial evidence to show that Western Society's traditions and beliefs about war are not so concrete and explicit. Rather, they are relative to the beliefs of the individual or government that wields them...and this can be a frightening notion.

I find Yoder's argument insightful and pertinent to contemporary topics in the world of today. However, like all arguments, there are questions and concerns that arise from Yoder's view and even the method of communicating these ideas. This communication is the first aspect I would like to confront.

Yoder's work, When War is Unjust is undoubtedly scholarly. Whether or not one agrees with his thesis, it is still difficult not to respect the amount of thought and effort that went into creating this work. With special attention given to crises that the world is presently experiencing, his work is invaluable regardless of its truth, because it forces one to question and think in different terms about the traditions and beliefs we as a nation and we as human beings hold to be of value. However, I believe that works such as this should be more readily available to a more general population. Such ideas and beliefs should be accessible in terms of comprehension to all people--even the less educated public. The public often is not given the chance to see all sides of international or ethical dilemmas that make it possible to judge for themselves. Because of this, they may blindly follow the ideas of the political and intellectual elites. Thus, although Yoder's work is useful, his ideas should be communicated in a less technical fashion for them to have more widespread influence.

It may be apparent by now, that I have yet to mention what Yoder believes would be the best compromise or alternative to the JWT as he analyzes it in his work. This is because he himself gives no answers to the problem of war. Though he rejects war on principle, Yoder is still interested in the Just War tradition being applied honestly. His main motive in When War is Unjust is to question the truth of this two thousand year old tradition as it applies in the contemporary world.

After reading his book, however, one is left with even greater questions. What should I believe now? What is the best course of action for my nation with regard to my personal opinions? If the JWT is found to have no meaning, what is a viable alternative? Yoder answers none of these questions. It is possible that the reason he doesn't attempt a solution is because there may not be one. At least, there may not be one currently, with all that is going on in the world. Perhaps choosing the best methods requires an entirely new personal mindset within those that decide whether it will be a war that will fought--or the idea and desire for war that will be fought.

I agree with Yoder on most of his points, but still what should one do about all the Stalins or Hitlers that have come about through history? Would it not be considered immoral not to stop such individuals that wish to forcefully take control and conquer people? Would we not be equally accountable if we allowed some maniac to exterminate from the planet an entire race of humans that are equal to us in every way including the manner in which God views them. Are any means justifiable when it comes to stopping such hatred, violence and evil?