How many of us think of ourselves as pacifists? Would you say that violence is never a viable way for settling conflict? Why? Can you ever imagine a war to be justified? This exploration of just war, pacifism and non-violence will come in two parts. Today I’m thinking about just war philosophy and I have left time for your responses. Next time we will examine pacifism as a way for Unitarian Universalism. At our 2006 General Assembly, representatives from the various Unitarian Universalist congregations present passed a Congregational Study/Action Issue called Peacemaking. Congregations are asked to study it for a couple of years, suggest modifications, and take actions based upon it. When it has gone through this vetting process it comes again before the General Assembly, where, if approved, it becomes a Statement of Conscience. As such it serves as a reference for actions and policies of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and congregations. The study action issue “Peacemaking” reads as follows. “Issue: should the Unitarian Universalist Association reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and nations and adopt the principle of seeking a just peace through nonviolent means? Background and reasons for study: as the human population has increased there has been a corresponding increase in contact between groups of people who were largely isolated from one another in the past. This context, coupled with differences in politics, religions, moral values, and beliefs as well as economic injustices and competition for resources, have led to countless conflicts around the world. Humankind struggles to achieve peaceful coexistence economically, socially, politically, and spiritually. Significance to Unitarian Universalism: historically, Unitarian Universalists have agreed with the theory and practice of just war, or use of force in self-defense to preserve the life of another person. However, we have also supported peace and disarmament in over 80 resolutions since our merger in 1961. We offer counseling for conscientious objector status. We call on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi, the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Our principles are models for peacemaking yet we act as if violence is more effective than nonviolence in certain situations. As a religious denomination, we need to clarify our position and apply our covenants to affirm and promote the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all. " This study action issue represents a departure from own history and tradition in that it calls for us to adopt non-violence fully. While pacifism has always existed among us, in the past a majority of Unitarian Universalists have supported the idea of a just war, in the 19thc as it applied to the Civil War and in the 20thc as it applied to WWI and WWII. Is a complete adoption of non-violence a stance we want to take at this point in time? The questions that I explore today are these: can a just peace always be obtained through non-violent means? Are there situations in which violence is a viable, or necessary, alternative? Is there such a thing as a just war? Is peace possible? All the evidence that we have of prior civilizations, dating in Europe from as early as 35,000 years ago, shows that human beings practiced warfare upon each other. Cave paintings from Lescaux in France, artifacts found in graves, evidence from human skeletons, historical writings, art and artifacts all point in this direction. Historical evidence, that is writings from other time periods and civilizations themselves, indicates that any number of different cultures have sought to articulate principles of justice in war. The just-war tradition, a set of mutually agreed upon rules of combat, evolved first between two similar enemies. We find it, for example, in the writings of the 5thc BCE Greek historian Thucydides, in the writings of the 1stc Roman philosopher Seneca. Early records of collective fighting indicate that some moral considerations were used by warriors. Commonly they involved considerations of honor: some acts of war have always been deemed dishonorable while others have been deemed honorable, with the specifics differing with time and place and culture. Parts of the Bible suggest there are ethical behaviors in war and concepts of justice. There is also an Islamic concept of just war. The most systematic exposition of just war philosophy came from Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologica, (Part II, question 40) Aquinas presents the general outline of what became the just war thinking. He discussed not only the justification for war, but also the kinds of activities that are permissible in war. In the ensuing centuries many scholars and jurists have expanded upon Aquinas' thought. In the 20th century just war theory has undergone a revival in response to the invention of nuclear weaponry and American involvement in the Vietnam war. Since the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11th academics have turned their attention once again to just war. Just war theory is not a doctrine, but a changing field of critical ethical reflection. What are the moral guidelines for waging war? The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the ends being proportional to the means used. Possessing a just cause is probably the most important condition for a just war. Most theorists hold that initiating acts of aggression is unjust. Self-defense against physical aggression is putatively the only sufficient reason for just war. However, the principle of self-defense can be extrapolated to anticipate probable acts of aggression. The second principle of a just war philosophy is that the war be declared by proper authority, which resides in the sovereign power of the state. The general idea of the concept of right intention is that the nation waging a war should be doing so for the cause of justice and not for reasons of self-interest or aggrandizement. A war cannot be considered just if issues of national interest are paramount or overwhelm the pretext of fighting aggression. The next principle, that the war have a reasonable chance of success, has to do with a cost and benefit analysis. Is the sacrifice justified by the outcome? Finally, the desired ends should be proportional to the means used. For example, if one country makes a border raid, it would not be considered just if the raided country responded by annihilating two thirds of it’s enemy’s fields. This leads into the second part of just war theory and that is rules for just conduct in war. These fall under the broad principles of discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination has to do with limiting one's attack to the legitimate targets of war and proportionality has to do with how much force is morally appropriate. It is possible that a nation fighting an unjust war may still wage that war according to just conduct conditions. Modern Just War theory requires that the agents of war be held responsible for their actions. This ties their actions to morality generally and gives the individual agent moral responsibility. One is not absolved by the defense of following orders. Can you see how President Bush went to great lengths to present the current war in Iraq as a just war? There was a just cause – self defense in anticipation of probable acts of aggression by weapons of mass destruction. The proper authority for declaring war – the US Congress– transferred that authority when they passed a resolution giving the president some autonomy in the waging of this war. Right intention resides in our desire to be liberators and bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. And, we were told, we had more than a reasonable chance of success. We have tried to fight this war with a minimal number of troops and with the smallest possible disruption to domestic life, keeping the means proportional to the ends. I think it is very, very important to the American psyche that we believe any war we fight is a just war. We see ourselves as beacons of liberty and freedom for all and we see ourselves, perhaps, as morally superior to the rest of the world. This is why so many people supported the war. Now investigations into rapes and murders of civilians by Marines, the tragedy of Abu Graib prisoners and other incidents are showing us our own lapses in discrimination and lack of proportionality in the conduct of this war. Our neglect of justice deeply shakes our notion of ourselves as the bearers of justice. These wounds to our national self identity will not be healed quickly and cannot be justified by a philosophy of just war. Not only because we have violated the theory of just war and justice in the conduct of war, but because the philosophy itself does not hold up to scrutiny. The idea of a just cause, which resides in self-defense, overlooks any provocation or prior acts that might explain the aggression taken by the other party. For example, if country A makes a trade embargo on country B and by doing so brings about a great deal of damage to the economic prosperity of country B, so much so that country B, out of desperation, physically attacks country A, is country A completely innocent? Does country A have a just reason to go to war against country B? Cause becomes effect, effect becomes cause, cause becomes effect and so on. The idea of a just cause seems to isolate one action and call it just, while in reality actions are not isolated, but exist in a continuous flow of cause and effect. One can argue against the notion of proper authority needing to declare war if the sovereign power of the state has not been derived through legitimate means. If the government is just, i.e., it is accountable and does not rule arbitrarily, then giving the officers of the state the right to declare war is reasonable. However, the more removed from a proper and just form a government is, the more reasonable it is that its sovereignty disintegrates. The notion of proper authority therefore requires thinking about what is meant by sovereignty, what is meant by the state, and what is the proper relationship between the people and its government. The possession of right intention, to me, is also somewhat simplistic. Right intention, or waging a war for noble causes, more often than not exists side-by-side with waging a war for reasons of self-interest. I wonder if any nation would wage a war solely for idealistic reasons? I wonder if anyone would go to war if self-interest did not play a part in it? Is self-interest necessarily morally inferior? And if self-interest does play a part, how does one measure the real relationship between right intention and self-interest? At what point does right intention separate itself from self-interest? Or is that even really possible? The weighing of costs and benefits to determine the likelihood of success of any war further undercuts the notion of an altruistic right intention. If you have no hope of victory, should you not be bothered to help an oppressed people? Is it right to comply with aggression because the costs of not complying are too prohibitive? The principle of reasonable success emphasizes that human life and economic resources should not be wasted in what would obviously be an unwinnable match. But what about moral necessity? Finally, keeping the means proportional to the ends of a war. Is that possible in the nuclear age? Is that possible in an age of terrorism? What does that even mean in today's world? What about justice after war? What happens after warfare is suspended? Just war theory does not concern itself with that. For these reasons, just war philosophy is not compelling. It does not adequately justify any war. I would conclude that there may be no such thing as a just war. Does that mean that pacifism is the alternative and superior moral position? It too has its problems. Peace is relational. If one party won ’t join with us in peace, we may or may not have peace. Or it may come at great sacrifice. We might be free to sacrifice ourselves, but do we have the right to sacrifice others? My struggle is that I do not hold with a “just war” philosophy; I do put my trust in peace, I do believe that there is no way to peace but that peace is the way; I don’t think violence is just. Yet I cannot completely rule out violence as a response to grave injustice. When we have perceived that our survival is threatened, humans have responded with violence. I recognize the seeds of it within myself and I cannot say with absolute certainty that, if threatened, or if my family was threatened, or even a stranger was threatened in my presence, I would not seek to stop the violence with more violence. I cannot say with certainty that I would watch the suffering of others with non-violence if violence could bring it to an end. Can you? I am most conflicted about the use of violence when it becomes personal. I think I would try to do everything I could to prevent it coming to that, but such an approach isn’t always successful. For myself, I think I would remain non-violent; I think I would choose peace at any price. If only I were involved. But when others are involved? The moral compass loses its direction. What, if any, is the ethical basis for my position? Emmanuel Kant noted (this is a basic extrapolation of Kant’s complicated thought), that good, unselfish intentions can make an action ethically sound, standing apart from the consequences of that action. But I have always held to an ethics of consequence. Intention matters, but so does outcome. It’s not enough to say “I didn’t mean it. My intentions were unselfish.” My intention is to stop violence, but my means to that goal are not just because I cannot find justice in violence. Clearly I need to more fully explore the ethics of this, which is why there is a part 2 of this sermon. You know the Zen story of the samurai who comes to the Zen master and says “ You’re supposed to be a great Zen master. Tell me the truth about heaven and hell. Do they really exist?” The Zen master looked up at him and wondered aloud, “How did such a brute as you become a samurai?” The proud samurai drew his sword and raised it over the Zen master’s head. “I’ll kill you” he shouted. The Zen master replied, “This is hell.” The samurai paused and was silent. Then he sheathed his sword and bowed to the Zen master. “And this is heaven” the master said. Although war is hell, I cannot help but wonder if a total and everlasting peace is an unattainable heaven. Is peace a goal or is peace a path, an imperfect and challenging journey? I leave you with questions today. Is there such a thing as just war? Is violence ever to be chosen? Is peace possible? Are you a pacifist? There’s more to be said on this. Next time I will continue with pacifism, our own historical relationship with pacifism, and some further thoughts about the study/action issue Peacemaking. Now it’s time for you to share. May it be so.