Thomas Aquinas 'Morality Of War And Peace'

After reading Article 1, Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy M. Renick most can automatically acquire that Thomas Aquinas was a very influential thinker amongst others when explaining his theological views. His religious views may have differed from others during his time, however, it did influence and encourage others on the different topics of God vs. Satan, and why God has not all the answers, and powers when making sure every human being should not face evil. Aquinas believed that Christians needed to view their basic beliefs in another way to make sense of their own faith when questioning all that God did for each individual. The real question to all this, which a lot of people even question today is “Why is their evil in the World?”

The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the

In this paper, I plan to give an exposition of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ five point argument. Next, I plan to state one of the five arguments that I find the most compelling and then explain why it is so compelling. Finally, I plan to state one of the five arguments that I find the least compelling and give reasons as to why it is the least compelling.

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

In the text “Aquinas on Law, Morality, and Politics (Aquinas, 164)”, Aquinas discusses the topic of war and killing. A question is asked that states “Is it always sinful to wage war?” and this question is met with 3 objection statements. The object statements say that it is sinful to declare war because those who live for war activities will die by participating in war activities and because of that they will be punished. Three other reasons as to why it is sinful to declare war is because war goes against the divine precept, it goes against the concept of peace, and war-like activities are not allowed in the church. Aquinas counters these objects by stating that there are 3 different kinds of criteria that are needed in order for a war

He was greatly influenced by scholasticism and Aristotle. Aquinas took Aristotle’s notion of friendship and love, stated that with God, and his sharing of happiness with us, that love is a friendship with man and God. No human community based friendship, should treat killing of the innocent with sympathy, because this action would cause rejections of others and would depart from the shared divine life that is the gift of the Spirit. To be human is to be part of a larger whole, and political arrangements are said to be training us to ignore human life, to that of satisfying personal preferences. “Forfeiting love for getting rich or maintaining something called an ‘individual right to bear arms.” (pg. 612) The author of this article goes on to say that assault weapons have but one purpose and that is for destruction, unlike a ‘knife’ that can be used for multi purposes, even though it may cause death, its soul purpose is not to bring harm. He goes on to say that learning to live life, is to learn to live well, and to learn to play without cheating. Cheating in the sense of sin, and weapons such as this gun aimed at or for destruction. In his option we need to look at life for the purpose of growth in friendship and love, and questions if assault weapons could ever be a part of that definition. Pulling from Aristotle’s idea of perfect

What is the Just War theory and how did it pertain to St. Augustine? According to Augustine there is no private right to kill. According to Paul Ramsey opposes in The Just War, Christian participation in warfare “was not actually an exception to the commandment, “you shall not murder” but instead an expression of the Christian understanding of moral and political responsibility. One can kill only under the authority of God. St. Augustine argued that Christian rulers had such an obligation to make peace for the protection of his subjects even if the only way to eliminate such a threat was through force of arms. St. Augustine believed that in wars there was a right intention.

According to the Just War theory, just war is separated into two domains. First is the motivation behind entering war, and second is the means used during warfare (Hu, 2). The first judgment signifies justice of war, or jus ad bellum that evaluates the terms of a just versus unjust war. The second signifies justice in war, or jus in bello, which essentially measures whether or not the ends justify the means. The relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello are independent of each other, meaning that even if the war passes the judgment of one area, it does not imply justification for the other

Thomas Aquinas. The three conditions for waging a justified war is that war must be waged by authority. Aquinas says that, “It is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress.” (Aquinas 484) This means that a country or individual in power must declare war because if anyone were to declare war it could be out of vanity and revenge. It would be for personal gain. Next, a war is justified by a just cause. This means that a war must have a substantial reason for it such as moral conflict or mistreatment of citizens. This is supported by quote,“When a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects.”(Aquinas 485) Lastly, a war is justified only when the outcome will benefit the people, or it is for good intentions. “Wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.”(Aquinas 485)

The first reason being, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged(Article 1). It is important to note that the sovereign is the leader or overseer of a certain project. Aquinas believes that the people themeselves can not wage a private war on a country, but if the sovereign say its okay, then they are allowed to wage a war. The second reason that Aquinas gave is that, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault(Article 1). Here, Aquinas attempts to explain that war is just as long as you have a cause to attack someone,and that they did something wrong to you or others around you. It’s the famous line “and eye for an eye.” An example of this reason would be, if someone were to get hit , it would be okay for them to go back and hit the person back. Although this may be bad like in school accoriding to Aquinas it is completely legal to attack someone if they attacked you. The third reason he gives is that, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil(Article 1). Intending to demosntrate that it is okay to wage war, Aquinas says that it is always okay to wage war as long as the person you have rightful intentions.

Throughout the course of this essay, I will first define what Aquinas means by incorporating the claim that “an unjust law is no law at all”. This will include defining important terms that will correspond with evaluating Aquinas’ claim.

The assumption that there are a morally significant achievements that can be made in war seems paramount to just war theory. Taking a life without certainty of of the necessity of doing so undermines the value of that life. Because international relations provides such an ambiguous and subjective subject matter to apply just killing theory to, pacifism seems to be the approach most likely to encourage peace.

Secondly, Aquinas allows for flexibility and the reality of the world which in turn makes his Natural Law easier to follow. An example is the primary precept of reproduction, which at its core says any action that prevents the increase of our population is wrong. This is the basis for the Catholic Church’s stance against homosexuality, abortions, and contraception. However, if a woman with cancer is pregnant and opts to take chemotherapy and the result is the death of the fetus that is acceptable. Aquinas reasons it is acceptable because the death of the fetus was an unintended consequence of saving the life of the mother. Aquinas says that first the action must be good, in this case saving the life of the mother. The next part is the evil must be

The first principle of law according to Aquinas is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this” (ST I-II.94.2). The other precepts are self-preservation, procreation, education of offspring, seek truth avoid ignorance, and live in society. Aquinas believes the natural law is written on every human and every human has equal knowledge of good and evil; however, once individual circumstances are factored in, it is dependent upon humans to follow or ignore it. However, Aquinas believes that “the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men 's hearts” (ST I-II.94.6) but through bad habits of the society it could be weakened. According to Aquinas, the natural law has two main aspects. The first of these is that “the natural law is altogether unchangeable in its first principles” (ST I-II.94.5), which means God can add to, but not take away from, the law. This only applies to the primary precepts; the secondary precepts may change in some particular aspects. The second aspect is that “the written law is said to be given for the correction of the natural law” (ST I-II.94.6.ad 1); to put it simply, human laws are necessary to fill in the gaps/loopholes left from the natural law. Aquinas’ teachings shows that the actions of human is either good or bad depending on whether it conforms to reason.

Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus Post Bellum are the three stages of Just War Theory. Jus ad Bellum pertains to the ethics of starting a just war, with the principles being having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. Jus in Bello covers the conduct of individuals at war, with discrimination and proportionality being the guidelines. Meaning, only use force against legitimate targets in war, and only use an amount of force that is morally appropriate. Jus Post Bellum discusses how justice should be served following the cessation of a war, with discrimination being a big