The last section of the dissertation examines the extent to which Ramsey's and Niebuhr's analysis during the Vietnam War reflected the strengths and weaknesses of their moral frameworks. The two moral conceptions of war developed by these theologians, I argue, shaped their analyses in ways that ought to inform later theologians and ethicists that work within the terms Niebuhr and Ramsey provided.
With a new foreword by noted theologian and ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, this classic text on war and the ethics of modern statecraft written at the height of the Vietnam era in 1968 speaks to a new generation of readers. Characterized by a sophisticated yet back-to-basics approach, The Just War begins with the assumption that force is a fact in political life which must either be reckoned with or succumbed to. It then grapples with modern challenges to traditional moral principles of "just conduct" in war, the "morality of deterrence," and a "just war theory of statecraft."
The work explores the distinctive influences of philosophical pragmatism and absolute idealism on Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Ramsey, two influential twentieth-century theologians, who learned from and transformed these philosophies in the light of contemporary theological trends. It explores how these theologians shaped their moral theologies, political theories, and approaches to war in the light of these philosophies.
For the last several decades, the Just War debate amongst theologians has been dominated by two accounts of moral rationality. One side assumes a presumption against harm (PAH), and the other identifies with a presumption against injustice (PAI). From Presumption to Prudence in Just-War Rationality argues that the time has come to leave behind these two viewpoints in favor of a prudentially grounded approach to Just War thinking. This book offers a compelling new perspective on this important and pertinent subject. As such, academics and students in Religion, Theology, Philosophy, Ethics and Political Theory will all find it an invaluable resource on Just War theory.
Can a war really be considered justÓ? If so, which wars, and under what circumstances? If not, why not? When War is Unjust provides a systematic exploration of these questions for students of ethics, Christian doctrine, and history. For centuries the just war tradition has been the dominant framework for Christian thinking about organized conflict. This tradition sets a number of specific conditions which must be satisfied before a particular war can termed justÓ and therefore supportable by the faithful Christians. John Howard Yoder, himself a pacifist, approaches the just war theory on its own terms. His purpose: to introduce the student to this just-war tradition, and to offer a critical framework for evaluating its tenets and applying them to real conflicts. When War is Unjust takes the just war tradition seriously, and holds its proponents accountable in a critical debate about when - if ever - war can be justified. It is a readable and thought-provoking primer on the history, criteria, and application of just war teaching in Christian churches.
The threat to the survival of humankind posed by nuclear weapons has been a frightening and essential focus of public debate for the last four decades and must continue to be so if we are to avoid destroying ourselves and the natural world around us. One unfortunate result of preoccupation with the nuclear threat, however, has been a new kind of "respectability" accorded to conventional war. In this radical and cogent argument for pacifism, Robert Holmes asserts that all war--not just nuclear war--has become morally impermissible in the modern world. Addressing a wide audience of informed and concerned readers, he raises dramatic questions about the concepts of "political realism" and nuclear deterrence, makes a number of persuasive suggestions for nonviolent alternatives to war, and presents a rich panorama of thinking about war from St. Augustine to Reinhold Niebuhr and Herman Kahn. Holmes's positions are compellingly presented and will provoke discussion both among convinced pacifists and among those whom he calls "militarists." "Militarists," we realize after reading this book, include the majority of us who live a friendly and peaceful personal life while supporting a system which, if Holmes is correct, guarantees war and risks eventual human extinction. Originally published in 1989. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.
In Recovering Christian Realism, H. David Baer interprets just war theory as political ethic concerned with the moral administration of power. He argues that contemporary just war theorists, by debating the finer points of individual criteria, have lost sight of the theory of politics that gives rise to just war thinking in the first place. Baer attempts to relocate just war theory within the tradition of Christian realism in order to develop an ethic capable of addressing the uses of power. He argues the just war criteria unfold from a description of the political act, one which harnesses power to peace and points the way toward an ethic of armed force and international relations.
War wounds the soul. It is not only the violence that warfighters suffer against them that harms, but also the violence that they do. These soul wounds have come to be known as moral injuries: psychic traumas that occur from having done or condoned that which goes against deeply held moral principles. It is not surprising that the committing of atrocities or the accidental killing of the innocent would hurt the soul of warfighters. The problem is that many warfighters at least tacitly follow the commonplace belief that killing another human being is always wrong--it's just that sometimes, as in war, it is necessary. This paradoxical commitment makes the very business of warfighting morally injurious. This problem is also a crisis. Clinical research among combat veterans has established a link between killing in combat and moral injury and between moral injury and suicide. Our warfighters, even those who have served honorably and with the right intentions, are dying by their own hands at devastating rates--casualties not of the physical threats of war, but of the moral ones. It does not have to be this way. The just war tradition, a moral framework for thinking about war that flows out of our Greco-Roman and Hebraic intellectual traditions, is grounded in the basic truth that killing comes in different kinds. While some kinds of killing, like murder, are always wrong, there are other kinds of killing that are morally neutral, such as unavoidable accidents, and still other kinds that are morally permitted--even, sometimes, obligatory. The Good Kill embraces this tradition to argue for the morality of killing in justified wars. Marc LiVecche does not deny the morally bruising realities of combat, but offers potential remedies to help our warfighters manage the bruising without becoming irreparably morally injured.
John Howard Yoder was one of the major theologians of the late twentieth century. Before his death, he planned the essays and structure of this book, which he intended to be his last work. Now two leading interpreters of Yoder bring that work to fruition. The book is divided into three sections: pacifism, just war theory, and just peacemaking theory. The volume crystallizes Yoder's argument that his proposed ethics is not sectarian and a matter of withdrawal. He also clearly argues that Christian just war and Christian pacifist traditions are basically compatible--and more specifically, that the Christian just war tradition itself presumes against all violence.
