- Student Opportunities
About Hoover
Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance.
- The Hoover Story
- Hoover Timeline & History
- Mission Statement
- Vision of the Institution Today
- Key Focus Areas
- About our Fellows
- Research Programs
- Annual Reports
- Hoover in DC
- Fellowship Opportunities
- Visit Hoover
- David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
- Newsletter Subscriptions
- Connect With Us
Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.
- Eric Bettinger
- Thomas Sowell
- Michael McConnell
- Josiah Ober
- Stephen Haber
- Economic Policy Group
- History Working Group
- Hoover Education Success Initiative
- National Security Task Force
- National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
- Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
- Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
- Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
- State & Local Governance
- Strengthening US-India Relations
- Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
- Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region
Books by Hoover Fellows
Economics Working Papers
Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers
- Hoover Fellows Program
- National Fellows Program
- Student Fellowship Program
- Veteran Fellowship Program
- Congressional Fellowship Program
- Media Fellowship Program
- Silas Palmer Fellowship
- Economic Fellowship Program
Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.
- Determining America’s Role in the World
- Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
- Empowering State and Local Governance
- Revitalizing History
- Confronting and Competing with China
- Revitalizing American Institutions
- Reforming K-12 Education
- Understanding Public Opinion
- Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
- Energy & Environment
- Health Care
- Immigration
- International Affairs
- Key Countries / Regions
- Law & Policy
- Politics & Public Opinion
- Science & Technology
- Security & Defense
- State & Local
- Books by Fellows
- Published Works by Fellows
- Working Papers
- Congressional Testimony
- Hoover Press
- PERIODICALS
- The Caravan
- Economic Policy
- History Lab
- Hoover Education
- Global Policy & Strategy
- Middle East and the Islamic World
- Military History & Contemporary Conflict
- Renewing Indigenous Economies
- State and Local Governance
- Technology Policy Accelerator
- US, China, and the World
Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.
- China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
- Email newsletters
- Hoover Daily Report
- Subscription to Email Alerts
- Periodicals
- California on Your Mind
- Defining Ideas
- Hoover Digest
- Video Series
- Uncommon Knowledge
- Battlegrounds
- GoodFellows
- Hoover Events
- Capital Conversations
- Hoover Book Club
- AUDIO PODCASTS
- Matters of Policy & Politics
- Economics, Applied
- Free Speech Unmuted
- Secrets of Statecraft
- Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century
- Libertarian
- Library & Archives
Support Hoover
Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.
What is MyHoover?
MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.
Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.
Log In to MyHoover
Forgot Password
Don't have an account? Sign up
Have questions? Contact us
- Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
- Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
- Follow Hoover on Social Media
Make a Gift
Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.
- About Hoover Institution
- Meet Our Fellows
- Focus Areas
- Research Teams
- Library & Archives
Library & archives
Events, news & press, when war must be the answer.
The case for force
It has been the fault of both pacifism and liberalism in the past that they have ignored the immense burden of inherited evil under which society and civilization labour and have planned an imaginary world for an impossible humanity. We must recognize that we are living in an imperfect world in which human and superhuman forces of evil are at work and so long as those forces affect the political behaviour of mankind there can be no hope of abiding peace. — Christopher Dawson, “The Catholic Attitude to War,” 1937 1
While the effects of sin abound — greed, dishonesty and corruption, broken relationships and exploitation of persons, pornography and violence — the recognition of individual sinfulness has waned. In its place a disturbing culture of blame and litigiousness has arisen which speaks more of revenge than justice and fails to acknowledge that in every man and woman there is a wound which, in the light of faith, we call original sin. — John Paul II, Address to American Bishops, May 14, 2004
A calm and reasonable case can and should be made for the possession and effective use of force in today’s world. It is irresponsible not to plan for the necessity of force in the face of real turmoils and enemies actually present in the world. No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly. Without force, many will not talk seriously at all, and some not even then. Human, moral, and economic problems are greater today for the lack of adequate military force or, more often, for the failure to use it when necessary.
It is my earnest hope and indeed the hope of all mankind that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past — a world founded upon faith and understanding — a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish, for freedom, tolerance, and justice. . . . We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem is basically theological, and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, and literature, and all material and cultural developments in the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.
W e thought that we had founded a system to prevent wars, especially small ones, in addressing theological and spiritual problems. MacArthur seemed to assume that such a perfect system could be established. But in this he was something of a utopian, not a realist. Since he spoke these words some 60 years ago, we have seen thousands of wars of varying degrees. The spirit and means whereby we believed many small wars could be stopped — the work of converting the whole world to a better “system”— actually resulted in little being done when needed on a scale that would be effective, often a small scale.
I n late spring, in Baltimore, I walked to the end of Chestnut Street where it meets Joppa Road. On one corner was a large official-looking residence called “Mission Helpers Center.” On both sides of its entrance gate were large blue and white signs that said, “War Is Not the Answer.” These placards recalled many too-simple slogans I have seen in recent years about war, often, like this one apparently, from religious sources: “War is obsolete.” “War is never justified.” “The answer to violence is not more violence.” “War does no good.” “No one wins a war.” “Love, not war.” “Diplomacy, not war.” “Dialogue, not war.” “Stop violence.” “Justice, not war.” “No war is legitimate.” “Everyone loses in war.” “War, Never Again.”
T he most lethal weapons are today turning out to be car bombs and ordinary passenger planes. The problem with nuclear weapons was never the weapons themselves but rather the will and purpose for which they might be used. In the retrospective light of the bombing of the World Trade Center, the series of antiwar documents produced during the 1980 s by American Catholic bishops decrying nuclear war seem almost irrelevant. Such earlier considerations of “absolute weapons” were wholly out of touch with what was to be the problem of defense in the twenty-first century. The fact is, deterrence did work, however reluctant we may be, for ideological reasons, to admit it.
Q: Is there a clash of civilizations . . . ? A: The Church has defeated communism but is just starting to understand its next challenge — Islamism, which is much worse. The Holy Father has not been able to take up this challenge due to his old age. But the next pope will find himself having to face it . . . . Q: Some bishops in Italy have allowed chapels to be used as mosques. A: It will be the Muslims who convert us, not the other way around. Wherever they settle down, sooner or later they end up becoming a leading political force . . . . Q: Does it make sense to export our democracy to agricultural and sheep-herding societies that make no distinction between religion and politics? A: No. This is idiotic. Islamic people base their decisions only and exclusively on the umma . They don’t even know what individual rights are.
M y topic here, however, is not Islam but war. Islam is not the only civilizational problem, and it is not necessarily unified with itself. Western secularist ideology is as absolutist in its own way as Islam. Theorizing that the “terrorists” are merely a side-show, a tiny minority which will naturally pass out of existence, is an easy way out of considering the more basic problem of the civilizational movement and what to do about it. This consideration is based upon the notion that Islam is a confident civilizational movement, suddenly aware, thanks to the judgment of its more radical leaders, of the possibility of continuing its historic mission: spreading the religion by force or other means throughout the world.
The dynamic character of man’s communal life finds its image within the very structure of every act of justice. If the basic act of commutative justice is called “re-stitution,” the very word implies that it is never possible for men to realize an ideal and definitive condition. What it means is, rather, that the fundamental condition of man and his world is provisory, temporary, non-definitive, tentative, as is proved by the patchwork character of all historical activity, and that, consequently, any claim to erect a definitive and unalterable order in this world must of necessity lead to something inhuman. 3
It is arguable that a criminal can always be satisfactorily dealt with without the death penalty. It is certain that a whole nation cannot be prevented from taking what it wants except by war. It is almost equally certain that the absorption of certain societies by certain other societies is a great evil. The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, of even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil . . . . The question is whether war is the greatest evil in the world, so that any state of affairs, which might result from submission, is certainly preferable. And I do not see any really cogent argument for this view. 6
1 Christopher Dawson, “The Catholic Attitude to War,” Tablet 169 (March 13, 1937).
2 See James V. Schall, “Justice, Brains, and Strength: Machiavelli and Modernity in Political Philosophy,” Jacques Maritain: The Philosopher in Society (Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), 1-20.
3 Josef Pieper, An Anthology (Ignatius Press, 1989), 63.
4 Herbert Deane, Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine (Columbia University Press, 1956), 155.
5 Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror (Basic Books, 2003), 168
6 C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Macmillan, 1965), 43
View the discussion thread.
Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.
Is War Ever Morally Justified? Essay
When discussing the domain of war, it is necessary to stress its ethical component. Almost any war implies mass and institutional violence, which has a purposeful character and assumes a strain between countries. It is crucial that this phenomenon is deeply rooted in history since wars have been perceived as the most common form of communication between states, which is confirmed by historical reality. However, this mode of interaction has also been regarded as a strongly negative format of interstate relations. The purpose of this paper is to provide arguments that a moral justification of war is impossible based on a critical discussion of theories supporting the ethical justification of warfare and prove that they have inherent contradictions and are likely to lead to further negative manifestations and consequences.
In order to understand the arguments that make it possible to justify war from the standpoint of morality, it is crucial to analyze the history of this phenomenon. Initially, a war was considered acceptable if the participants in this process acted in accordance with the existing rules and had justified their reasons for unleashing the military conflict (Kovac, 2013). If these conditions were not followed, the conflict was considered barbarous. The distinction between a morally justified and an immoral war depended on the purpose of initiating it and the side against which the warfare was unleashed. Some experts in the field claimed that wars derived from the social order of the world (Kovac, 2013).
For example, some theorists believed that war was a necessary state of humanity. Opponents of this position argued that people were benign beings by their nature who could come to unanimity without the use of force and violence. However, a social space and its structure pushed states to fight with each other. Although these beliefs were diametrically opposed, they revealed a general understanding of wars, which implied that they could be morally justified since they were a prerequisite for the development of the world.
One of the fundamental approaches that consider similar arguments to justify the use of military action is realism. In this theory, the emphasis is placed on the political aims of war. The conduct of war is not only a seizure of territory and victory over the enemy but also an unsurpassed opportunity to have an impact on the opponent’s consciousness. Justification of war from this standpoint lies in social antagonisms that reach the level of interstate contradictions (Morkevičius, 2015). Consequently, in this approach, war has a rational explanation and is an inevitable given.
However, when arguing whether or not realism allows justifying war from a moral perspective, it is necessary to note that this theory breeds such concepts as “war” and “morality” on different sides of the barricades (Morkevičius, 2015). Thus, a military action cannot be considered from the position of morality. Due to the fact that war is regarded in the context of political action and affects interests of state structures, realism cannot justify war from a moral point of view.
Another direction that justifies the use of military action is the theory of militarism. In general, it is a reactionary policy of strengthening military power and intensifying military preparations. It is interesting that this theory has a specific discourse on the moral justification of military action (Morkevičius, 2015). In particular, war is compatible with morality in the sense that it does not allow society to regress. For example, when justifying a military conflict, experts supporting this position suggest that war stimulates the development or emergence of moral values.
It is reasonable to assume that without wars the evolution of such domain as justice would be impossible. However, such an argument can be rejected as this approach proclaims the apotheosis of war (Morkevičius, 2015). In this connection, in society, a threat of total war of annihilation is increasing.
Interestingly enough, there is a position that fundamentally opposes any wars, which is pacifism. No military confrontation can be ethically justified, and the supporters of pacifism morally condemn any armed struggle since it inevitably leads to human casualties. Therefore, this theory strives for a peaceful conflict resolution. Initiation of war is rejected as a means to resolve international disagreements since it affects the lives of civilians (Ryan, 2013). Moreover, a pivotal argument in this approach is that people also should not resort to violence in response to the evil exhibited towards them.
Despite the fact that pacifism morally denounces wars and any justifications of them, this view is subjective in some cases. Although pacifism pursues a humanistic worldview, this approach contains a contradiction on a fundamental level. There are different modes of pacifism ranging from its absolute form, which views wars as univocal evil, to pacifism that has a conditional character. In the latter case, violence is likely to be morally justified under certain circumstances (Ryan, 2013).
Moreover, these factors are determined by specific political conditions. Consequently, conditional pacifism also has a connection with theories that support a moral justification of wars. Notably, having reviewed the arguments that either defend or reject the moral component of war, it becomes possible to observe the counter movement of militarism and pacifism towards each other (Ryan, 2013). At the confluence of some circumstances, pacifism can justify the need for violence against people while militarism can exhibit an opposite tendency.
Just war theory is another popular approach, which argues that it is possible to justify the emergence and conduct of a military action from the ethical point of view. The concept is a compilation of certain aspects of pacifism and militarism. The concept is based on two fundamental principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello (Sussmann, 2013). According to the first principle, war can be morally justified if certain rational causes are present and violence is applied to ensure international order and security. At the same time, war should be wielded by legitimate authority. Moreover, a military action can be justified if it does not imply implementation of bad intentions.
An important factor that this theory includes is that both sides should participate in a war only if they are not doomed to failure (the forces are distributed evenly among the opponents). Also, another principle presupposing the moral justification of war is that it should be an extreme measure to which a state resorts (when diplomatic measures prove to be ineffective) (Sussmann, 2013). From the standpoint of the second fundamental principle ( jus in bello ), a military conflict can be ethically viable when a pragmatic principle of a probability of success is observed. An aspect of paramount importance that this theory has is that a military conflict should prevent a greater evil.
On the one hand, in this concept, it is possible to discern a rational grain. Just war theory does not denounce war initially as pacifism does (Ryan, 2013). Also, in this concept, military conflicts are not glorified as in the theory of militarism. Moreover, unlike realism, just war theory does not subordinate a military action to the political necessity but requires a moral basis (Sussmann, 2013). On the other hand, it can be argued that war cannot be morally justified when relying on the principles of this concept since they have high flexibility; therefore, they lose their objectivity.
The general purpose of just war theory lies in its potential to maintain violence at a morally acceptable level. However, jus ad bellum and jus in bello contradict each other in their core. Importantly, the discrepancies can be detected in the conceptual apparatus of the theory. Moreover, they reveal a practical inconsistency of the concept.
An example of the way just war theory exhibits contradictory arguments lies in its interpretation of legitimate power. Notably, every state has a legitimate government; however, in the case when civilians rebel against it in order to establish a new government, it becomes impossible to determine what power should be considered legitimate (Sussmann, 2013). Thus, the argumentation proposed in the theory leads to a paradox.
Moreover, the understanding of evil proposed in the concept also contains a contradiction. For example, according to this approach, good can fight evil using force. In addition, each of the opponents can offer their understanding of evil and initiate a military conflict to achieve justice (Sussmann, 2013). Thus, despite the fact that just war theory provides stronger arguments than such approaches as realism, militarism, and pacifism do, this concept also does not offer normative provisions that allow justifying war from a moral perspective.
Comparing the arguments provided above, it can be stated that wars cannot be morally justified for a number of reasons. The discussed theories and their arguments focus on human rights or the need of countries to subordinate military conflicts to a political necessity (Kovac, 2013). However, such a worldview revives the theological meaning of war, which has already had severe consequences. In particular, such argumentation makes it possible to justify humanitarian intervention from the position of morality.
Large-scale negative outcomes of such a reasoning can be observed in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and some other states. Moreover, these arguments lead to the emergence of hybrid wars, which are global police operations in their core (Sussmann, 2013). In addition, when substantiating wars from the ethical perspective, radicals receive a moral right to proclaim their supreme ethical value as the cause of war. It will lead to the fact that disparate values will inevitably resonate with each other.
Thus, it can be concluded that wars cannot be morally justified. Despite the fact that different theories provide multiple arguments to prove a polar worldview, these assumptions often contain contradiction. Many of the approaches discussed in the paper rely on the historically formed idea that war is an essential state of humanity since it allows the world to develop, and warfare is acceptable when it relies on some common principles. Nonetheless, this mode of justification is not related to morality. However, more importantly, the points provided in different theories leave room to subjectivism and interpretation, which can evolve in further negative manifestations such as wars veiled under humanitarian interventions or other overtones.
Kovac, J. (2013). Science, ethics and war: A pacifist’s perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19 (2), 449-460.
Morkevičius, V. (2015). Power and order: The shared logics of realism and just war theory. International Studies Quarterly, 59 (1), 11-22.
Ryan, C. (2013). Pacifism, just war, and self-defense. Philosophia, 41 (4), 977-1005.
Sussmann, N. (2013). Can just war theory delegitimate terrorism? European Journal of Political Theory, 12 (4), 425-446.
- Torture as Morally Unjustifiable Practice
- Ethical Standards in Social Work
- Militarism in China and Its Advantages
- US Militarism: War Brides and Internment
- Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Theory of Just War
- Ethics and Social Responsibility Aspects
- Planned Parenthood and Women’s Rights
- Lethal Autonomous Weapons and Virtue Theory
- Is Abortion Morally Justified?
- Abortion Debate: Immoral Aspect of Pregnancy Termination
- Chicago (A-D)
- Chicago (N-B)
IvyPanda. (2020, October 31). Is War Ever Morally Justified? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/
"Is War Ever Morally Justified?" IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/.
IvyPanda . (2020) 'Is War Ever Morally Justified'. 31 October.
IvyPanda . 2020. "Is War Ever Morally Justified?" October 31, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/.
1. IvyPanda . "Is War Ever Morally Justified?" October 31, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Is War Ever Morally Justified?" October 31, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-war-ever-morally-justified/.
- To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
- As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
- As a template for you assignment
IMAGES