When doing a research paper like this one, regardless of how much information you've found on the subject, you haven't actually done the entire project unless you put forth your own argument which somehow advances an understanding towards the subject. So far, that's been my difficulty-I now know plenty about St. Augustine and the Medieval view of war, but where to go from there? Well, I believe I've now found an answer in an article I found by Christopher Toner, The Logcial Structure of Just War Theory.
In this paper, Toner argues that the concepts of jus ad bellum (before the fight "why" considerations) and jus in bello (during the fight "how" considerations) have not been properly described in the literature previously. See, the traditional view of the two considerations have been that they are very separate categories, that even if you have one, you could still have the other. For example, the Nuremburg trials after WWII operated with the assumption that you could still fight war morally even if you were fighting for an evil cause-that is why we only prosecuted the officials who were responsible for waging the war, not those who were merely engaged in it.
According to Toner, this view is all wrong, because (without getting into the real details of the argument) the two concepts follow a parallel structure of "primary" and "secondary" concerns, such that the two look more like two facets of the same consideration. He finds further support in this claim by citing what he believes to be the views of Augustine and Aquinas, the "Substantive Dependence Claim," which basically says that even if one fights a war following all of the traditional rules, it is still not the case that you are acting morally if your cause is not at the same time just. This would mean that for Toner-and as Toner claims, also Augustine and Aquinas-we were mistaken for being merciful to Nazi soldiers during the Nuremburg trials, that both soldiers and officials should have been brought before trial. This claim (also found in other sources not mentioned here) seems like a very strong and rather unintuitive claim, and from what I've read of Augustine, it doesn't seem to follow his beliefs at all, so thus far it seems like I'm going to be essentially attacking this paper with my own.
Toner, Christopher. "The Logical Structure of Just War Theory." J Ethics 14 (2010): 81-102.
Tyler,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you have found an intriguing contrast to the argument you may be making in your paper. I especially thought your use of the Nuremberg trials as an example clarified and illuminated the differences in framework that are at play in regards to the theory. It will be interesting to see how you proceed to distinguish Augustine's beliefs as not supportive of Toner's claims. I did wonder- do you support Toner's idea that the literature has not properly described the two considerations (even if you don't agree with how he redefines them exactly)?