Just War theory
The second set of guidelines are known as Just War Theory, this has been haltingly worked out over hundreds of years. It starts from the premise that war is always an evil to be avoided and should therefore only be embarked on under specific circumstances as a last resort. In the Christian tradition this goes back to St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas Note: Just War Theory . Unlike Tit for Tat which is purely utilitarian (it started from the premise that it works) Just War Theory started from a morale/ethical standpoint; that killing is wrong and that war is always an evil.
However, I think that there is a huge (underestimated, untapped) weight of (historical) evidence in favour of adopting the just war tests based on utility alone. In support of this I would point to The Utility of Force, the art of war in the modern world, General Sir Rupert Smith. He quotes Albert Camus (who was writing about Frances war in Algeria, but the point is a general one)
“Whilst it is true that in history at least, values – whether of the nation or of humanity – do not survive unless we fight for them, neither combat nor force suffices to justify them. The fight itself must be justified and enlightened by those values. To fight for truth and to take care not to kill it with the very weapons we use in its defence; this is the double price to be paid for restoring the power of words.” Smith p383
The utility argument get allows one to get to the nub of the problem without an appeal to ethics.
The principles of just war theory provide an invaluable checklist.
- For a war to be just it must be possible to show; just cause, last resort, proper authority, right intention and a reasonable chance of success.
- The war itself has to be fought with discrimination, proportionality and does not exclude individuals from their responsibilities.
- When victorious the terms of peace must be reasonable.
If it is critical to balance means and ends in the conduct of war, it is undoubtedly also true for the conduct of politics. Here are two examples
- In Russia in 1917-21 war communism would have given way to socialism if the ends and means had been in balance - in practice war communism developed all the apparatus of state power that Stalin used and extended.
- In Great Britain from 1945-50 socialism would have been ushered in by a parliamentary majority if the means and ends had been in balance - in practice radical changes was pursued top down and the resulting institutions were not owned and run by their users. Despite having a degree of cross party support and surprising longevity the legacy of that Labour Government is under mounting pressure.