The morality of war

Many people believe that conflict has always been a part of human nature. In fact, the idea
of war and conflict is not limited to the world of humans: the balance of nature is
maintained not through quiet harmony, but through a constantly evolving series of conflicts
and struggles. However, can such naturally occurring phenomena as a lion killing an
antelope, an earthquake, a tribe of chimpanzees hunting a smaller monkey, or a cat
defending its territory, be compared to the often bitter human turmoils that can be seen
throughout the world? Is there a difference between human, and animal or 'natural'
conflict?

Humankind is obviously territorial and this may account for many of the world's conflicts;
but what of campaigns of invasion, the subjugation and even genocide of populations?
What of the millions of deaths that have occurred due to differences in religious beliefs, or
the torture of political prisoners? Can these events, that we hear of every day on the radio,
television and in the newspapers, really be 'natural' to humankind?

There are a number of differing arguments concerning this issue. It is generally accepted
that humanity is as much a part of nature as a tree, a fish or a fly, but in addition to this,
many also believe that the actions of humans are also a part of nature, and this includes
everything that we do, from dropping nuclear bombs to testing cosmetics on animals.
Humans are not 'above' nature in any way, but what is certainly true is that we have
developed a certain awareness and foresight regarding the consequences of our actions.
This is where the idea of a moral decision enters the argument. Whether we choose to
ignore our knowledge, or to act upon it, is often the basis for a moral decision - shall we
continue even though we are aware of what our actions will cause? Is what I am doing
going to cause suffering or happiness to others? Can I justify making one person suffer so
that many can be happy? Is what I am about to do 'natural', and does that make it good?

This last question is an important one to ask when looking at human conflict in relation to
what is natural. Many believe that everything that people do is natural and cannot be
otherwise; but if something is natural, it does not necessarily mean that it is good or right. If
torture is 'natural' to human behaviour, then surely this does not make it good.

Christianity and the morality of war

Jesus asked people to look deep within themselves to discover an important truth. Jesus taught that it was essential for people to find love for others, and if such love could be found, then humanity would be saved from the bitter struggles and wars that forever
consume it.

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you
also should love one another. (John 13:34)

What Jesus asked was not easy to achieve, and his words have often been ignored or
misinterpreted in bouts of religious fervour. During the Crusades (religious campaigns by European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from Muslim control) thousands of people were killed for a religious cause. One of the most devastating genocides in the history of the world took place when attempts were made to forcibly convert the peoples of South America to Christianity. In the twentieth century, Christian countries have waged war upon one another and upon non-Christian countries. The First and Second World Wars; wars in Vietnam, Korea, the Falklands/Malvinos, South Africa, and Northern Ireland, were all fought by countries which professed to practise Christianity and its central belief of love.

So what leads people apparently to leave their beliefs, and take up arms? Many Christians see some reasons for going to war as being valid. St Thomas Aquinas distinguished a number of reasons for which a person may partake in a just war:

1 A war can only be controlled by the state or the sovereign of the country, and not by an
individual.

2 The cause must be a just one, such as self-defence, coming to the aid of a persecuted country or community, or the righting of a wrong.

3 All other attempts to solve the problem must have failed before violence is used: a war is the last resort.

4 The amount of force used should be appropriate to the wrong committed, and enough only to win the war without excessive violence.

5 The intention must be the correct one, such as the bringing of peace.

Christianity and pacifism

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Matthew 5.9)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Christian, killed by the Nazis for his activities in helping Jews to escape from concentration camps, and for his part in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler.

 
As a Christian, Bonhoeffer saw it as his duty to put to an end the evils of Nazi Germany. He saw the campaign of destruction waged against the Jews by his fellow Germans as being an abomination. Although he was a peace lover, Bonhoeffer felt that his purpose as a pacifist and Christian was not necessarily to renounce violence, but to use it as a way of ending the persecution of Jews. He joined the Abwehr, a group dedicated to the assassination of Hitler.

In 1942, Bonhoeffer was arrested, and in 1945, hung for treason. He is referred to as a pacifist, yet he was planning the assassination of a fellow human being. When is it allowable to take a human life? Was Bonhoeffer a pacifist? When crimes against humanity on the scale of those in Nazi Germany are happening, what is the role of a Christian pacifist? What we begin to see is that there are no unbending laws in relation to the saving of human lives and the prevention of suffering, and that each individual case must be carefully examined before any action is taken.

Islam and the morality of war

The Arabic word jihad is often mistakenly translated as 'Holy War'. War is only a minor
and extreme element of the struggle of Muslims to serve Allah. Jihad is the personal effort
made by each individual Muslim to devote his or her life to acts which Allah will reward. It
also means the fight against evil. Although jihad does not mean war, many Muslims believe
that the fight against evil and the preservation of Islam may justify going into battle.

The Prophet was asked about people fighting because they are brave, or in honour of a
certain loyalty, or to show off: which of them fights for the cause of Allah? He replied,
"The person who struggles so that Allah's word is supreme is the one serving Allah's
cause." (Hadith)

The word for a justified holy war is Harb al-Muqadis. Islam sees self-defence as a just
cause for war. Muslims themselves are forbidden from being the first to attack.

Fight in the cause of God those who fight with you, but do not transgress limits; for God
loveth not transgressors. (Surah 2:190)

Islam, being a holistic way of life, governs politics as much as any other aspect. It is not
possible to separate things as, for example, in England, where Parliament and the Church
have little influence on each other. The right to live in a democracy is seen as being a
defensible one and therefore tyranny and dictatorship are to be resisted.

Islam and pacifism

Muslims see jihad as a way to peace. The aim of jihad is to create a society where
Muslims can worship Allah in peace, without other beliefs or politics being forced upon
them. In accordance with the sayings of Muhammad (pbuh) set out in the Hadith, Muslims are forbidden from being the aggressors in any conflict, and therefore if the enemy offer peace, then Muslims too must put down their weapons.

Peace in Islam does not mean accepting the present situation, if that is one of stable but
unjust peace-keeping, but enemies and oppressors must be fought without hatred or
vengeance, and once the battle is over, peace must be restored and differences reconciled.

Hate your enemy mildly; he may become your friend one day. (Hadith)