Summa

Theologica, excerpts
by Thomas Aquinas (1265-1274)

Thomas Aquinas was an Italian Dominican friar and a Catholic priest. In this
passage, he defines the conditions under which a war could be just.

OF WAR
Article I. Is it always a sin to go to war?
There are three requisites for a war to be just.
The first thing is the authority of the prince by whose command the war is to be
waged. It does not belong to a private person to start a war, for he can prosecute
his claim in the court of his superior. In like manner the mustering of the people,
that has to be done in wars, does not belong to a private person. But since the
care of the commonwealth is entrusted to princes, to them belongs the protection of
the common people of the city, kingdom, or province subject to them. And as they
lawfully defend it with the material sword against inward disturbances by punishing
male-factors, so it belongs to them also to protect the commonwealth from enemies
without by the sword of war.
The second requisite is a just cause, so that they who are assailed should deserve
to be assailed for some fault that they have committed. Hence Augustine says: Just
wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, in cases where a nation or
city has to be chastised for having either neglected to punish the wicked doings of
its people, or neglected to restore what has been wrongfully taken away.
The
For
and
and

third thing requisite is a right intention of promoting good or avoiding evil.

Augustine says: Eagerness to hurt, bloodthirsty desire of revenge, an untamed
unforgiving temper, ferocity in renewing the struggle, dust of empire,these
the like excesses are justly blamed in war.

{}
To the objection from the text that all that take the sword shall perish with the
sword, it is to be said, as Augustine says, that he takes the sword, who without
either command or grant of any superior or lawful authority, arms himself to shed
the blood of another. But he who uses the sword by the authority of a prince or
judge (if he is a private person), or out of zeal for justice, and by the authority
of God (if he is a public person), does not take the sword of himself, but uses it
as committed to him by another.

Questions to consider:

1) What are the three conditions under which Thomas Aquinas would argue war can be just?

2) How does he respond to critics who argue it is always wrong for people to use the sword?

3) Thomas Aquinas is a Catholic priest, writing in Italy in the 11th century CE. Why do you
think he is writing about justifications for war? How would these justifications be used?

On War, excerpts
by General Carl von Clausewitz (1832)
Clausewitz was a Prussian general, and a military strategist. He was the author
of On War, which outlines his theories on the nature and purpose of war.
Book 1. On the Nature of War
Chapter 1. What is War?
WAR IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE INTENDED TO COMPEL OUR OPPONENT TO FULFIL OUR WILL.
War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the
countless number of duels which make up a War, we shall do so best by supposing to
ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to
submit to his will: each endeavours to throw his adversary, and thus render him
incapable of further resistance.
WAR REQUIRES THE UTMOST USE OF FORCE.
Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and
overcoming an enemy without great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency
of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error. He who
uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a
superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in its application. The former then
dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities to which the only
limitations are those imposed by the amount of counter-acting force on each side.
WAR IS A GAME BOTH OBJECTIVELY AND SUBJECTIVELY.
If we now take a look at the subjective nature of War, that is to say, at those
conditions under which it is carried on, it will appear to us still more like a
game. Primarily the element in which the operations of War are carried on is
danger; but which of all the moral qualities is the first in danger? COURAGE. Now
certainly courage is quite compatible with prudent calculation, but still they are
things of quite a different kind, essentially different qualities of the mind; on
the other hand, daring reliance on good fortune, boldness, rashness, are only
expressions of courage, and all these propensities of the mind look for the
fortuitous (or accidental), because it is their element.
WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.
We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real
political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the
same by other means.

Questions to consider:

1) How does Clausewitz define war?

2) What do you think Clausewitz would have to say about the purpose or necessity of war?

3) Clausewitz was writing in the 1820s in Europe how do you think this time period
influence what he was writing?

OVERALL THOUGHTS

1) How are the two readings similar? What are there differences?

2) How do you think peace activists today (or yourselves) would respond to or criticize these
readings?