Essay Networks

St. Thomas Aquinas is regarded as one of the Doctors of the Catholic Church. This is because he established much of what the Church regards as Doctrine in reference to moral theology. One of these things was the question of a how a person can kill another in warfare, and be justified doing it. Thomas Aquinas based much of his theology on the earlier works of St. Augustine of Hippo, and also brought to light many theories, such as the principle of Double Effect and situational ethics. In this essay, I will be discussing the theory of Double Effect, and how it justifies killing another person in war or otherwise, the effect of situational ethics on the taking of human life and also the catholic churches’ teachings on a ‘Just War.’

Saint Augustine of Hippo was the first person to write down a set of ideals in the fifth century on an ideal that was profoundly difficult: how to reconcile traditional Christian teaching against the use of violence with the need to defend the Roman Empire – who had been Christian for more than a century by this time – from the invading Vandals. The solution he reached – a justification of war under certain prescribed circumstances, yet with genuine limits on the harm that could be done even in a justified war – is regarded as the beginning of the just war doctrine in Christian teaching. Augustine came up with two terms; one to define what is just to do in wars, which is jus in bello and the other pertaining to circumstances that are just cause for a war is called jus ad bellum.

Augustine first formulated the theory for killing another person that did not directly involve defence of the individual directly. This is because “Self-defence is given little attention by just war theorists for the further reason that the individual’s right to defend himself from mortal threat was taken for granted.” (Teichman, J, Pacifism and the Just War, 1986, p 69) Augustine treated defence by means of a ‘paradigmatic’ situation involving three persons: a criminal who is attacking a second person, the innocent victim, and a third person, an onlooker, on whose behalf Augustine offers his thoughts. The onlooker, as a Christian, must be motivated by love for both of the other people involved: the criminal and the victim. Yet the criminal, who is armed, is unjustly aggressing against the innocent weaponless victim. “The proper action for the Christian, reasoned Augustine, is to intervene between criminal and victim, defending the latter even at the risk of his own life against attack or threat of attack by the former.” (Johnson, J.T, Can Modern War Be Just? 1984, p 3) This defence of the victim is mandated by the onlooker’s love for him as someone for whom Christ died.

In defending the victim, the onlooker must also remember that Christ also died for the criminal, and therefore the onlooker must limit what can be done in defence of the innocent victim. Augustine argued for a proportionate response to the criminals actions, only designed to thwart the criminal from carrying out his evil intention. Any escalation of violence is now the criminal’s responsibility, and the onlooker may use whatever force is necessary, up to and including killing the criminal, in defence of the victim.

It is upon this situation that Thomas Aquinas based his theories, most notably the principle of Double Effect. He argues that the moral object of the act may not be evil in itself. In the case above, the onlooker had a moral object of defending the victim, not harming the criminal. His main concern was for the wellbeing of the victim, which in itself is not evil. The death of the criminal was unintended, and therefore there is sufficiently grave reason to permit the evil effect.

There are several situations in which going to war, and therefore killing another human being, can be justified. “The traditional reasons include self-defence, the defence of the homeland, the defence of allies, the bringing back to the status quo after the theft of goods or expropriation of territory, the punishment of guilty persons (for example, ‘warmongers’, generals, war criminals, etc) and the coercion of wrong thinking people (as, for instance, heretics, infidels, etc).” (Teichman 1986: 55)

The position of the Catholic Church in regards to going to war has changed over time drastically. Indeed the very first papal father of the Church, St. Peter, carried a sword and indeed drew blood with it, as mentioned in the Gospel. Pope Leo IV (847 – 55) decreed that “killing infidels was no murder.” (Teichman 1986: 54) He also promised the Kingdom of Heaven (to which he officially had the keys) to all those who died in wars against infidels. Pope Urban II (1088 – 99) decreed that those who publicly or privately killed excommunicated people were not guilty of murder, and when he launched the First Crusade he said that killing an infidel was not a sin.

Gratian, who in 1140 made a collection of Church canons, including the decrees of Leo IV and Urban II, says that military service is not a sin provided it is not done for gain or plunder. He said that military action should only be carried out in the service of a legitimate authority such as a prince, and it needs Episcopal permission. It should be noted that Gratian also said “Coercion of heretics and Crusades against infidels are amongst the proper tasks of Christian princes, as is evident from various papal decrees.” (Teichman 1986: 54)

This brings us to what actually constitutes a ‘Just War’. According to a pastoral letter by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, there are seven conditions that need to be met in order for a war to be called ‘just’. These are:

1.         Just Cause: War is permissible only to confront a real and certain danger i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence, and to secure basic human rights

2.         Competent Authority: War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.

3.         Comparative Justice: In recognition of the fact that there may be some justice on each side, every party to a conflict should acknowledge limits of its “just cause” and the consequent requirement to use only limited means in pursuit of its objectives.

4.         Right Intention: War can be legitimately intended only for the right reasons set forth above as a just cause.

5.         Last Resort: For war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.

6.         Probability of Success: War should not be waged if its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.

7.         Proportionality: The damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms. This principle of proportionality applies throughout the conduct of the war as well as to the decision to begin warfare.’

Situational ethics are the basis for a just war. It is a situation in which it is acceptable to go do something that otherwise would be counted as immoral. In certain situations, such as a justifiable war, the killing of other human beings is acceptable. There is a limitation on this however. It is seen that the killing of enemy soldiers is acceptable, as they are armed as well and perfectly capable of defending themselves. Killing innocent civilians, or non-combatants, is not moral in any circumstances however. The protection of these innocent people falls under Augustine’s jus in bello, or what is just in war. One of these principles is the principle of discrimination. This principle prohibits directly intended attacks against non-combatants and non-military targets. Any violations of jus in bello immediately makes any war that a country may be participating in, unjust and therefore immoral.

The Catholic Church carries a stance that is very pacifistic and therefore wishes for warfare and the killing of human life to be avoided at all costs. It also acknowledges that in some circumstances, aversion of taking human life is impossible. This is why Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas came up with their theories. The principle of double effect and situational ethics must be taken into consideration, and the person who is responsible for the death of another person must be sure that they have made morally right choices, and are only defending their own lives or the lives of other innocent people. The saying “the ends does not justify the means” applies more than ever in warfare and in the taking of human life, and therefore the taking of human life must be avoided if possible. Warfare and the taking of human life must be the last possible resort.