Aquinas Three Conditions Of War Analysis

Improved Essays
1A
Aquinas’ three conditions that make war “just” are: Proper authority, Just cause, and the right intention (PP. 4). The first condition states that war can only be declared by the highest authority in government, the head of state. The purpose of declaring war is to give the other state a chance to make peace. If the parties involved are not able to reach a peaceful settlement, then the head of state of of the second nation must refuse to resolve. At this point, both sides have tried to come to peace and haven’t and are aware that war is coming.
The second of Aquinas’ three conditions is the “Just Cause” principle. It states that in order for war to be declared, one must have a good reason. According to Aquinas ( and Augustine), good reasons
…show more content…
(pg. 52). The conditions that must occur in order for this to be true and applied are: The bad effect was an unintended side effect, it is proportional to the good effect, there is no alternative to achieving the good effect, and lastly, the act is morally good or indifferent to begin with (PP. 4). What this means is that if one carries out a good action but there is a partial bad reaction that occurs because of it, it’s okay because it was unintended, unavoidable, and/or the only resort to obtain that necessary good action. One implication where this applies is self defense. If one is being attacked and that person kills their attacker, it would be justifiable due to the fact that it was an unintended outcome or the only option. That being said, Aquinas believed that if the death of the attacker was not an accident nor the only option, it is not justifiable because it is “outside the intention” (pg.52). Another implication where this could be applied is acts of war. Although Aquinas, himself, doesn’t implement it in this way, it is still highly applicable by reason of defense. Though it can be used in this situation as well, it is important to remember that staying alive alone is not a sufficient enough reason and one must be aware of the foreseen harm that will take

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Clausewitz: Purpose Of War

    • 1183 Words
    • 5 Pages

    If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand, but the disadvantages of this position must naturally not be of a transitory nature, at least in appearance, otherwise the enemy, instead of yielding, will hold out, in the prospect of a change for the better . Every change in this position which is produced by a continuation of the war, should therefore be a change for the worse, at least, in idea. The worst position in which a belligerent can be placed is that of being completely disarmed. If, therefore, the enemy is to be reduced to submission by an act of war, he must either be positively disarmed or placed in such a position that he is threatened with it according to probability. From this it follows that the disarming or overthrow of the enemy, whichever we call it, must always be the aim of warfare.…

    • 1183 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill Vs Kant

    • 1176 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Undoubtedly, the rescuer would have felt that running over a man is a bad act. However, Mills would have justified it through the principle of utility, because while it 's a bad act, it 's still permissible so long as, there is no other action that would have better consequences. Thus, the end justifie 's the means. Mills…

    • 1176 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The principle of proportionality maintains that the pursuit of a justified aim in war is constrained by a limit on the means one can adopt to pursue that aim. A means that is disproportionate to the aim is objectionable precisely because there are independent objections to the act that do not relate to the value of the military aim. These objections function as side constraints on the pursuit of the military aim. Proportionality is a principle, then, that relates jus in bello principles to jus ad bellum assessments. Without an independent jus in bello, there would be no such thing as the principle of…

    • 2493 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He further stated that in order for lasting peace to be attained, war must be fought justly and that peace must encompass all rights, not just civil or political, (7). In Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Speech, he argued that just and lasting peace cannot…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    No moral theory can help you decide what situation is right. The only true choice is the choice the person chooses because it is determined by the values one chose to accept. Sincere actions paint a picture of what all humans should be like. We are defined by our actions. If a person believes that they are nice person, but they go around and perform mean actions then some existentialists would say that they are mean person based on the actions they performed.…

    • 783 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He commences his analysis of the anarchy argument with a reference to Kenneth Waltz’s “Man, the State, and War,” and narrows in on the claim that “war occurs because there is no way to prevent it…In the absence of a supreme authority there is then the constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force,” (Waltz, 188.) Fearon undeniably agrees that anarchy breeds uncertainty in international political dynamics, yet he remains unconvinced that the lack of a central governing force is enough to explain the recurrence of war, especially when one considers the significant associated costs. This may initially seem to be a fully developed argument against anarchy’s ability to account for war; however, in focusing solely on one component of Waltz’s argument, Fearon fails to address a key aspect of Waltz’s preferred theory that does in fact account for the phenomenon of costly war:…

    • 1115 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Such emphasis on importance of practicing empathy matches with liberalists’ view that empathy is required in international cooperation. Failure to be empathetic, however, can cause the strong to lose and evidences that supports McNamara’s claim can be found in Record’s article. Record first introduces Andrew Mack’s argument. Mack argued “will to fight and prevail” is the ultimate determinant of which side is likely to win. According to Mack, “ for insurgents ‘war’ is total, while for the external power it is necessarily ‘limited’, meaning that weaker side has its country and independence to lose in a war so it fights with everything it has.…

    • 1211 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Joseph Nye’s consequentialist point of view opposes Schelling’s irrationality, writing; “moral reasoning about nuclear weapons must pay primary attention to consequences.” Schelling’s Brinkmanship model aims to push the enemy as close to the nuclear brink as possible. By not paying primary attention to the consequences of nuclear deterrence, Schelling advocates risking MAD, which is morally unacceptable. This in turn reinforces that deterrence is not necessarily morally acceptable by default, but it must be tailored in such a fashion that moral acceptability is the primary concern. This can only be achieved if self-imposed restraints are effectively…

    • 2105 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For example with North Korea, they do not respond to talking and threaten the United States with nuclear threats, talking with them will not work and could just result to an attack on the U.S. War is oftentimes necessary because sometimes violence is necessary, there are positives to declaring war, and it can get things done faster. A reason that war is sometimes necessary is that sometimes violence is necessary. If terrorism threatens a country, military action will most likely need to be taken (“Violence Sometimes Necessary”). If terrorism or a terrorist threaten a country, like 9/11, war may have to be the only option, because otherwise whoever is attacking your country will not stop unless you put a stop to it. The U.S probably would not…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Generic utilitarians do not have set answer for what is intrinsically good or bad. They think that the best or right decision to make is whichever holds the most positive result. While the hedonistic utilitarians are set to the view that only happiness/unhappiness is intrinsically good/bad. They think that the right thing to do is whichever brings the…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays