The first condition is that the war must be declared by a proper government. Aquinas does not think the individual citizen has the right to declare war because if he is upset about something “he can seek redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior” (Aquinas 380). In other words he should take his problem to court. The government, on the other hand, can (and sometimes should) declare war because it is their job to protect the people. In the same way that the government can use force to restrain criminals within their own country, they are also allowed to use force against people outside their country who seek to harm their citizens.
The second condition is that the government waging war must have a just cause. Just because governments are allowed to wage war against other countries, doesn’t mean they can just go around attacking everyone. If they are going to attack someone they need to have a very good reason for doing so. Aquinas specifies “those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault” (380). Wanting something another country has, or disliking something about their culture would not be acceptable grounds for declaring war. Only if the other country takes something of yours unjustly, or in some way does harm to you, can you consider yourself to have a just cause.
The third condition is that the party waging war must “have a rightful intention”, they should be seeking the “advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil” (Aquinas 380). The end of the war (meaning the goal or the purpose) should be something like peace, or putting right a wrong done to you. You should not be motivated by hate, greed, or something equally petty. You should mean for your actions to make the world a better place, not worse.
Next, Aquinas discusses whether or not it is permissible to kill someone in self-defense. He comes to the conclusion that killing someone in self-defense is lawful. Aquinas, a Catholic Priest, bases this assertion off a passage in the bible. In the book of Exodus it says it is lawful to kill someone who is breaking into your house. Aquinas reasons that since one’s body is much more important than one’s house, it is also lawful, perhaps more lawful, to kill someone who is going to do damage to your body than your house. He also believes that whether or not someone’s actions are moral or immoral depends on what their intent is, not what follows accidently from them. When you kill someone who is attacking you, your intent is to save your life, which is perfectly lawful. Unfortunately, in order to do this you had to kill the person attacking you, that was the accidental effect. Thus, we are allowed to kill in self-defense, and someone who does is not guilty of crime or murder. There is only one way that killing in self-defense would be wrong; if you use more force than necessary. If someone is not going to seriously injure you, such as if they just intend to slap you, killing them in inappropriate, and is murder.
He also finds that an individual who kills someone by accident to be innocent. He says “chance happenings, strictly speaking, are neither intended nor voluntary. And since every sin is voluntary … it follows that chance happenings, as such, are not sins” (Aquinas 381). There is no intention of killing if it is entirely accidental. For example, if a construction worker is working on the top of a high raise building, and accidently trips and knocks something over the edge that falls and kills someone on the ground below, that is not murder. His intent was not to kill the person, it was an unfortunate accident.
However, Aquinas does specify two situations in which an accidental killing would be considered murder. The first is if your behavior at the time is unlawful. Pretend now that it’s not a construction worker who knocked something off the top of a high-rise building, it is a person who is illegally trespassing into a construction site to steal some equipment. If in the act of trespassing and stealing he accidentally drops something off the roof and kills someone, Aquinas would consider him, in a sense, guilty. Although his intent was not murder, his actions were not lawful and had they been avoided, no one would have been killed. The second way you could be guilty is if the death could have been avoided by a lack of carelessness. If I own an indoor rock climbing gym, and someone falls and dies because their rope is old and breaks, I would be guilty if I since I am supposed to replace the ropes after a set number of uses. It was my carelessness that caused his death, and had I taken proper care, and done what I was supposed to do, his death would have been avoided. Although I did not intend for him to die, I am still technically guilty.
To summarize:
Aquinas’s three conditions for a just war are:
1) That it is declared by a proper authorityAquinas’s three conditions for a just war are:
2) That those who declare war have a just cause
3) That those who declare war have a rightful intention
- Killing in self-defense is not murder unless you use inappropriate force.
- Actions are considered moral or immoral based on their intent, not accidental results.
- Killing by accident is not murder unless you are doing something illegal at the time, or you are being seriously careless.
- Sin is voluntary, so doing something by accident (involuntarily) is not sin.
Try applying the theory to these situations:
1) Consider these two countries: Candyland and Narnia. Narnia’s monarchy becomes aware of a candy shortage in their country and decides that an attack on Candyland could result in a wealth of sweets for their citizens, so they declare war. Would aspects of this situation would Aquinas approve of, and which would he not approve of?
2) A person is killed by a drunk driver, while taking a walk down the street. Would Aquinas think the driver is guilty of murdering the pedestrian?
1) Consider these two countries: Candyland and Narnia. Narnia’s monarchy becomes aware of a candy shortage in their country and decides that an attack on Candyland could result in a wealth of sweets for their citizens, so they declare war. Would aspects of this situation would Aquinas approve of, and which would he not approve of?
2) A person is killed by a drunk driver, while taking a walk down the street. Would Aquinas think the driver is guilty of murdering the pedestrian?
3) You are walking to your friend’s house when someone jumps out from behind a building and threatens to stomp on your foot if you don’t give him your wallet, so you kill him. Would Aquinas find you guilty of murder? Why or why not?
4) How do you think Aquinas’s position on killing in self-defense, and killing by accident relate to war? In which situation would people be killed by self-defense/accident? In which of these would it be acceptable and in which would it not?
4) How do you think Aquinas’s position on killing in self-defense, and killing by accident relate to war? In which situation would people be killed by self-defense/accident? In which of these would it be acceptable and in which would it not?
Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. "Whether It Is Always Sinful to Wage War?" Today's Moral
Issues. By Daniel Bonevac. Ed. Michael Ryan, et al. 6th ed. Boston:
McGraw-Hill, 2009. 380-81. Print.
