As indicated in my previous post, here, two weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend a day conference entitled Give War a Chance, which focused on a new defence of Just War theory written by Nigel Biggar. Having not read the book, I found the summary he gave quite helpful. The book begins with a reaction to and defence against four arguments raised against his own proposal of what makes a just war. The first is the “virus of wishful thinking,” that is, the false notion that there is a rational, non-violent solution to every conflict. For Biggar, we must be realistic about the necessity of violence: some people cannot be talked out of evil and so must be forced out. Second, is what he terms “Christian pacifism.” He engages with several different thinkers, Stanley Hauerwas and Richard Hay among others, but the crux of his response to Christian pacifism is a narrow definition of the kind of violence to which Jesus was opposed. Jesus was opposed only and specifically to “religious, nationalistic violence.” Other forms of violence are, at least in theory, permissible until proven immoral on other grounds. Third, Biggar rejects “legal positivism,” that is the idea that the only law is that which is created by humans. Universal, “natural law” always applies and is always the standard of what is truly just. Finally, “liberal individualism” is rejected. By this Biggar means primarily the irrevocable “right to life” of an individual which he rejects. There are many instances where this right can be and is revoked.
Positively, then, Biggar argued that violence is at times necessary, at times Christian, at times illegal by the laws of man but just in light of natural law, and can override the liberal ideals of human rights. Just War is not self-defence but rather the protection of the innocent, and it is necessary if one has a realistic perspective on human evil.
The rest of the conference was spent responding to these points, but the bulk of the time went to the discussion of two topics. The first, which is hardly worth mentioning, was the kind of quarrel that scholars love to have about which major thinker really thought what and when and how, and who got influenced by it. Augustine, Aquinas, Suarez, etc. The second was a prolonged discussion between Biggar and Mary Ellen O’Connell of Notre Dame about whether or not the UN has the right to make global laws or not. Biggar: “No!” O’Connell, “Yes!” Repeat. Of course my own interests made me wish that the conversation had focused on something else, but that is probably rather selfish of me. For the historians and international lawyers I am sure it was quite invigorating.
My own thoughts during the conference just moved down different lines. First of all, I get it. I have tried and failed on numerous occasions to be a “pure” pacifist, that is, I have tried to make the best possible argument that all violence, for any reason, at any time, is unjustified. I can’t do it. So I understand the need to offer a justification for those instances when violence, particularly lethal violence, seems necessary. Nevertheless, I don’t think that Biggar’s conclusions are really that helpful.
If we start with the limiting of Jesus’ teaching of violence I think we immediately run into problems. Even if we grant Biggar’s limitation we still must end up with the conclusion that nearly all wars are unjustified. For example, take the Kosovo conflict in the late nineties, an example offered by Biggar of a justified war. How can this be construed as a non-nationalistic, non-religious conflict? Now, certainly atrocities were being committed by the Serbs that led to the NATO intervention, but atrocities were committed by the Kosovars as well. Granted, they were much less sophisticated and publisized, but they were atrocities nonetheless. And the whole conflict was initiated and conceptualized as one with deep nationalistic and religious aims, particularly on the side of the Kosovarsm the side that NATO ultimately defended. I asked Biggar about this, and unfortunately he did not have time (or perhaps the desire) to respond.
But what war is not waged for either of these two reasons? In my previous post I mentioned America’s war of Independence, and this seems to fit the same bill. I am no historian of the period, but the way that I was taught to conceptualize that war was certainly in these terms. The colonists fought to create their own country and with religious motivations. Any argument for a Christian America usually starts here.
If we don’t limit Jesus’ words then the problem is even greater, and I am not sure that we can.
Another thought: the root problem, I think, is that our thinking about violence is basically driven by pragmatic and utilitarian concerns. In a given conflict, what will work and what will get the best results for the greatest number? This approach to ethics is quite easy to defend, and since these kind of concerns are built into our western worldview it is also quite intuitive. However, I think that part of Jesus’ radical message was that our behaviour should not be driven by that kind of logic, and when we think about violence we have to be much more sophisticated. Further, the Christian must always be open to the possibility that the right course of action will seem foolish and absurd when judged by outside criteria. This does not mean that the foolish is always correct, but the fact that something appears absurd does not rule it out.
So if the Christian morality is not driven by pragmatism, utilitarianism, and is open to the appearing foolish then the way that we deal with questions of violence will be much different. I’m still wrestling through the implications of that, but I fear this rambling has run its course.
2 Comments
Leave your reply.