Lesson video

Hi there, I'm Mr. Robertson.

It's a real honour to be with you today.

We are looking at a lesson of the unit around Religion, Peace, and Conflict, which is one of our AQA GCSE units.

Today's lesson is all about the just war theory.

We're going to be learning about what it is, how different Christians might respond to it, and how it can be applied in everyday life.

So by the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain the just war theory, you'll be able to describe different Christian views, and give your opinion on whether a war can ever be justified.

We have three keywords and phrases today.

Our first is just war theory, which is a set of ethical principles used to decide whether war is morally acceptable.

Next, we have the word pacifist.

A pacifist is someone who believes that all forms of violence are wrong, and therefore refuses to participate in war or any other form of violence.

And finally, we have situation ethics, which is an ethical theory emphasising making moral decisions based on the specific situation rather than relying on fixed rules.

By the end of this lesson, I'm confident you will be able to use all of these terms really well.

So our lesson on the just war theory has three sections.

The first section is called The Just War Theory.

So as we've hinted out already, the just war theory is a set of ethical principles which is used to decide whether war is morally acceptable.

War is incredibly complex, particularly in the modern world.

And so this theory tries to set out a series of statements or principles to enable us to decide whether a war is morally acceptable or not.

Ideas about just war appear in both religious teachings and also in non-religious philosophy.

And Christian ideas became the most influential in Western thought and international law.

So Christian ideas about war have fed into all sorts of Western thought.

Just war theory helps people and governments make moral decisions about war, and it's used by both religious and non-religious people to evaluate modern conflicts.

When, if ever, might war be justified? Lucas, Izzy, and Alex are discussing this question.

Lucas says, "Perhaps when a group is being attacked." Izzy says, "I'm not sure it can ever be justified in the modern world." And Alex says, "To protect innocent lives being threatened." I wonder what you think about each of their statements.

I wonder if there's someone there you agree with more than others.

I wonder where you stand on this line about war being justified or unjustified.

So how did this just war theory develop? We're gonna look at that in a bit more detail now.

So while back, at the time of the Ancient Greeks, thinkers like Cicero taught that war should have a just cause and be declared by the right authority.

When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, Christians now had to consider how to govern and use force responsibly, now they were in a position of actual power, rather being persecuted, that they had been before.

St.

Augustine was one of the first Christians to say that war can be justified.

He argued it must be for peace, led by a proper authority, and have right intentions.

So you can see some links back to Cicero there as well.

Aquinas, a very famous Christian thinker, built on Augustine's ideas using natural law, And he taught a just war needs a just cause, right authority, and right intention, and must have peace as the ultimate goal.

And although Christian in origin, just war theory has shaped laws about warfare like the Geneva Convention, and it's used in debates about war and widely accepted.

And sometimes we hear politicians on the news use lots of arguments about just war theory when they're talking about conflicts in the modern world.

So just war theory divides into three parts.

Firstly, we have jus ad bellum, which is the justice of resorting to war.

And these are the strands which have been developed over time.

There must be a just cause, as we've heard, and that cause must be to resist aggression or to protect rights.

It must have a legitimate authority.

Only a recognised and lawful authority can declare war.

The war must have a right intention, and that goal must be to restore peace and justice.

It must be a last resort, which means that all reasonable non-violent options must have been tried first.

It must have a reasonable chance of success, so that war must offer a real prospect of achieving its aims and not be totally unreasonable.

And it must be based on the principle of proportionality, which means that the expected outcomes must outweigh the harm caused.

So whatever is gonna be the result of the war must be worth it, must be better than the suffering the war is going to cause.

So we have some very, very clear strands of things that need to be considered when thinking about going to war.

Secondly, there is the idea of jus in bello, or the actual conduct of the war, how the war takes place.

For example, a war must have no illegal weapons.

So any weapons banned by international law, such as chemical or biological weapons, must not be used.

There must be discrimination in this war, so civilians must not be deliberately harmed.

Again, there must be this principle of proportionality.

So the force that is used, the type of weapons, et cetera, must be limited to what is needed, and not go beyond to create more destruction or more suffering.

Treatment of prisoners, people who are captured, prisoners of war must be treated humanely and not be tortured or killed.

There must be no intrinsically evil means.

So, for example, ethnic cleansing or mass rape as a weapon of war is always wrong.

And there must be no retaliation, so the rules must be followed, even if the enemy breaks them.

So, for example, if the enemy was to use a biological weapon, that does not mean there's an excuse to use one back.

And the third part of this is the idea of jus post bellum that justice at the end of the war.

So, for example, there must be some securing of rights.

So anything that was not there in the first place that justified the war must be restored.

So if the war was about protecting a particular ethnic group or people with particular beliefs, those groups, those people must have those rights restored at the end of the war.

There must be a legitimate peace declaration.

So at the end of the war, the proper authority must publicly declare that the war is over and that there is peace.

The peace terms must be proportional.

So any peace settlement of that country must be fair and not ask more of them than they can give.

And there must be just punishment.

So prisoners of war, again, should be treated humanely.

Those who've been prosecuted for their conduct in war should be treated humanely as well.

International law incorporates many of these just war principles to regulate the use of force and conduct in war.

Ideas of just cause are reflected in the United Nations Charter in 1945, especially Article 51, which permits the use of force only on self-defense or with Security Council approval.

The idea of discrimination, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 require parties to distinguish between competence and civilians, prohibiting deliberate attacks on non-combatants.

And proportionality, both the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions limit force to what is necessary, and ban tactics that cause unnecessary suffering or damage.

So you can see how modern, non-religious-based charters, such as the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Charter, have brought many of these ideas of just war theory into them.

In 2022, YouGov asked 2,219 members of the British public about whether having the Geneva Convention was a good thing.

You can see the results there.

You might want to take a moment to look at them carefully.

What do most people think about having rules that govern a war? We can see that a clear majority, nearly 80%, think it's a good thing.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

Which two of the following would violate the criteria of a just war? A, capturing enemy soldiers, B, using chemical weapons, C, declaring war after negotiations fail, D, bombing civilian areas.

Let's think about some of the things we've learned so far.

Excellent, using chemical weapons would be seen, and bombing civilian areas, would be seen as out-of-proportional, not tactics, that fit within a just war.

Fantastic if you got those right.

The rules for a just war have been violated, sadly, on many occasions.

And that raises questions about whether a war is ever likely to be just.

For example, in the Iraq War in 2003, the US and UK invaded Iraq without UN approval based on claims about weapons of mass destruction.

Now, if you remember, but the idea of jus ad bellum is that there must be a proper law or legitimate authority which starts the war.

And under the UN Convention in Article 51, that should be the Security Council.

In this case, the war went ahead without explicit UN approval.

In terms of the conduct of war, in 1995, during the Bosnian War, Serbian forces killed over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in what's known as the Srebrenica massacre.

So, again, often tactics of war could be really unproportional and really affect civilian populations.

And in terms of after-war justice, when the Allies won the First World War, the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 imposed severe penalties on Germany, and that led to political instability.

Some historians have said that that sowed the seeds of Nazism.

And so, actually, there's a real question about really defeating peace terms having any effect on a post-war settlement.

So we can see that throughout history, it's actually been incredibly difficult to have something that might be a truly just war.

Andeep is talking to Zara, who studied the ethics of war as part of her degree in politics, philosophy, and economics.

Andeep says, "Do you think any war has ever truly been just?" Zara says, "That depends on how strictly you apply just war theory.

Very few wars, if any, fully meet all the criteria.

Even wars with strong moral reasons, such as World War II, raise difficult questions about how they were fought.

For example, the bombing of civilian areas like Dresden and the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often criticised as violations of proportionality and discrimination." Andeep says, "So even if a war starts for the right reason, it can still be fought in the wrong way? Has any war ever actually met all the conditions?" Zara says, "Exactly, a war might start with a just cause, but still be carried out unjustly.

As to meeting all the conditions, some defensive wars come close, especially when a country is clearly under attack.

But even then, it is difficult to judge intention, proportionality, and long-term consequences perfectly.

Real wars are rarely that clear-cut." So we can see what Zara is saying, that we might go into a war with a just cause.

However, as the war develops and when it's finished, it may not still meet the criteria of a just war.

"So," Andeep says, "is the just war theory more of an ideal than something that actually works in real life?" Zara says, "Yeah, that's a fair way to put it.

It gives us a moral framework to judge decisions about war.

But in practise, most wars fall short in at least one area.

It's more useful as a tool for reflection than as a checklist that real conflicts neatly follow." So thanks, Zara.

There's some really interesting insights there.

The question for you, really, can war still be considered just if it begins for the right reasons, but then, as it goes on, involves actions that harm innocent people? What do you think about that? You might want to pause the video and ponder it, or speak to someone else close to you.

Let's just check our, true or false? Very few wars fully meet all the criteria of just war theory, because judging proportionality and intention in real conflicts is difficult.

Think about what Zara was telling us.

Is that true or false? Absolutely, it's true, isn't it? As Zara said, wars may begin to meet the just war theory, but actually, as they go on, things may go off.

Okay, a question for you now.

Sam is trying to recall what she's learned about just war theory.

She's made a start, but left some gaps.

I'd like you to complete her explanation.

She says, "Just war theory, developed by Augustine and Aquinas, sets out conditions for war, such as.

These principles guides actions before, and have influenced international.

Examples like the Iraq War, the Srebrenica massacre, and the Treaty Versailles show.

Applying the theory is difficult because.

." Think about what we've learned so far, think about some of the conditions for war, some of the principles that guide it, and how they've influenced international law.

Can you fill in those blanks? Look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Okay, so you might have said, "Just war theory, developed by Augustine and Aquinas, sets out conditions for war, such as just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, proportionality, and discrimination.

These principles guide actions before, during, and after a war.

And they've influenced international law, like the Geneva Conventions.

Examples like the Iraq War, Srebrenica massacre, and Treaty of Versailles show how violations of these rules.

Applying a theory is difficult, because judging proportionality and intention in real conflicts is complex." If you've managed to pick out some of those, fantastic work.

In our next question, we're going to be looking at Christian attitudes to the just war theory.

So different Christians have developed a range of responses to the just war theory.

Some accept the just war theory as a useful moral guide and believe it could sometimes justify conflict, particularly to defend the innocent or resist aggression.

Others believe no war can ever be just.

In their responses, Christians will interpret sources of authority differently.

Now, this quote is a really key quote to understand and something which is used often, and when we are thinking about this idea of a just war.

It comes from the letter to the Romans, and it's written by St.

Paul, who was a Christian living after the time of Jesus, and it's in the Christian New Testament.

It says, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, that there is no authority except that which God has established.

The authorities that exist have been established by God." Let's add some context to this.

So Paul wrote this letter to Christians in Rome under the Rule of the emperor.

So at that time, Christians were being persecuted.

And some Christians argue he meant obedience to avoid persecution, not a rule for all times.

This text can support the just war rule, that only a proper authority can declare war.

Disobeying the rulers could then be disobeying God, because as Paul says, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that God has established." However, not all rulers act justly, as we know in history.

And blind obedience to different rulers could support oppression.

Many Christians might argue that rulers must also reflect God's values of love and justice to be truly legitimate.

So this quotation could be used in different ways by different Christians.

Let's just check our understanding here.

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities." Which statement best explains how Christians might use this verse in debates about war? A, it shows that only a proper authority can declare war, linking to the just war theory, B, it shows that war supported by Christians are just, C, it proves that any war started by a ruler is always just.

Excellent.

It's A, isn't it? It shows that only a proper authority can declare war, and so Christians might link that to the just war theory.

Brilliant if you got that right.

So let's talk to some Christians and see what they think about this idea of just war theory.

Andeep is talking to Fiona, who's an Anglican Christian, and he asked her, "How do you, as an Anglican Christian, respond to the just war theory?" Fiona says, "I don't like war, and I've worked in war zones to alleviate suffering.

However, I think just war theory recognises there are times when war is justified.

I interpret St.

Paul to show that when we've exhausted peaceful means, war can be allowed under strict conditions." So for Fiona, war can sometimes be justified, as she thinks that just war theory can work as a Christian.

Andeep then speaks to Tamara.

He says, "Tamara, how do you, as a Quaker, respond to the just war theory?" Tamara says, "Quakers are pacifists and wholly against violence.

I think St.

Paul was writing at a time of persecution.

I don't think any war can be just.

I look to the words and actions of Jesus, such as, 'Blessed other peacemakers.

' Jesus challenged the authorities of his time rather than the submitted to them.

He preached forgiveness and love of enemies." So Tamara is saying that we need to see that Bible verse in context, and that as a pacifist, she would actually look to the actions and words of Jesus rather than St.

Paul to talk about the idea of rejecting violence.

Why might some Christians, like Quakers, oppose the just war theory? A, they are too afraid to fight in conflict, B, they believe St.

Paul has been misinterpreted, C, they may follow the example of Jesus as one of love and forgiveness.

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's C, isn't it? They may follow the example of Jesus as one of love and forgiveness.

Okay, I have a task for you here.

We have a quote from a Christian.

"As a Christian and a pacifist, I cannot accept the just war theory, because Jesus taught us to love our enemies and to live in peace.

For me, no war can ever be justified.

This means I would never join the army or fight in a conflict.

Instead, I try to follow Jesus' example by working for peace, forgiving others, and helping people in need.

I know this could mean facing criticism for not defending my country, being called unpatriotic, or even facing punishment for refusing military service." Okay, so reading through that quotation, can you explain one reason why this Christian rejects the just war theory? And secondly, what are the possible strengths and weaknesses of living by this belief in today's world? Could you include a source of authority in your answer? Have a go at this, and I really look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Wow, you've worked really hard on that, haven't you? Brilliant.

So you might have said, "One reason why this Christian rejects the just war theory," you might have said, "One reason this Christian rejects the just war theory is because Jesus taught people to love their enemies and live in peace.

The Bible says, 'Blessed are the peacemakers.

' which shows that Christians should avoid violence.

They believe fighting in any war goes against Jesus' teachings.

So for them, no war can ever be justified." You might have gone on to talk about strengths and weaknesses.

You may have said something like, "A strength of this belief is that it follows Jesus' example of peace and forgiveness.

The Bible also says, 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,' which encourages peaceful responses, even in hard situations.

It can inspire others to solve problems without violence.

A weakness is that some people may see pacifist as not helping to defend their country, and they may face criticism or even punishment for refusing to fight." If you've managed to mention a source of authority, and you've managed to make some of those points, then you've done a great job, and well done.

So for our final section, we're going to look at Applying the Just War Theory.

We're going to look at something called situation ethics.

Now, that's a Christian ethical theory developed by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s.

It teaches there are no fixed moral rules that must always be followed.

Instead, the only guiding principle is agape love, which is selfless, unconditional love, not the love that you might have for a girlfriend or a boyfriend, but something more disinterested than that.

In each situation, Christians should choose the action that produces the most loving outcome, even if it means breaking traditional rules or teachings.

Applied to war, this means a Christian might sometimes support fighting if it protects innocent people, showing love, but in another case, they might reject war if it causes too much harm.

Situation ethics was designed to create a flexible, case-by-case approach, which is different to the strict conditions of the just war theory.

So let's look at how situation ethics may look at the same event to become either for the use of war or against it.

If we look at the example of the Second World War, some Christians used Joseph Fletcher's principle of agape love to say that fighting might have been the most loving choice.

Whilst killing is tragic, it was seen as necessary to save millions from genocide.

So when using situations ethics to look back at the Second World War, we might argue that love for the victims, protecting the victims, outweighed the commandment to not kill.

And so you can use situations to argue for the Second World War.

However, other people have used situation ethics to argue from an anti-war perspective.

These Christians might have argued that true love might refuse violence altogether.

And so, instead, they may have lived out their love by sheltering Jewish refugees or serving as medics or aid workers.

And so from the love perspective, the war itself may have been wrong, but there may have been loving things to do within that war, such as looking after refugees, or serving as a non-combatant.

And there's a question for you here to check our understanding.

A country is attacked, and many innocent people are at risk.

Which response best fits situation ethics? A, following the just war rules step by step before making a decision, B, refusing to fight in all cases, because Jesus taught peace, C, deciding based on what shows the most love, for example, protecting the innocent, even if it means going to war.

Think about what we've learned so far.

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's C, isn't it? Situation ethics is about deciding what is the most loving thing to do rather than following just war or rejecting things completely.

Brilliant if you got that right.

Okay, to finish, I have a scenario for you.

We're going to try this to apply our theories.

In this scenario, a dictator of a country is carrying out human rights abuses.

However, military action may risk many civilian lives.

The first thing I'd like you to use is the just war theory to decide what should be done.

You might want to go back through the slides to think about some of the things that constitute the just war theory, such as having a correct authority, having a right intention, proportionality, et cetera.

I'd like you to write down your reasoning, and to see if you could apply it to this scenario.

What would just war theory say about what should be done in that situation? Secondly, I'd like you to think about what situation ethics decide should be done, thinking about this idea of acting out of love and doing the most loving thing in a situation, and write down your reasoning there as well.

And thirdly, I'd like you to compare the two answers, different ways of looking at the scenario, just war theory, situation ethics.

Did they agree or conflict? Really looking forward to seeing what you come up with in this case.

See you soon.

Wow, you've really been wrestling with quite a complex scenario.

So let's have a look.

You might have said something like, "According to the just war rules, this situation has a just cause because innocent people are being harmed.

It would be a just war if a proper authority, like the government or United Nations, declared that war.

The aim of the war would be to bring peace and stop abuse, which is the right intention.

A government would have to make sure that their actions in the war tried to reduce the number of innocent people that could be killed whilst fighting." And so it could be justified under just war rules.

You might have gone on to say that, "Situation ethics focuses on agape love.

In this case, I think the most loving action might be to protect the victims, even if it means going to war.

Saving thousands of people from abuse could outweigh the harm caused by fighting." You might have said, "My two answers agree, but the approaches show how difficult it is to decide, and that it's hard to predict before a war how much harm is going to be caused." Now, you may have come up with slightly different answers, but have you looked at the just war conditions and gone through them, and used some reasoning? And have you understood how situation ethics works, and done that reasoning as well? If you have, brilliant work.

Let's summarise what we've learned today.

So we've learned that the just war theory gives rules for when a war might be allowed.

These rules include a good reason, a proper authority, of right intention, last resort, and not harming innocent people.

We've learned that some Christians support the just war theory, but others reject all war, because Jesus taught peace.

And finally, we looked at situation ethics, which says that Christians must look at each case and choose the most loving action, even if it doesn't follow the just war rules.

Loads of information for you to learn today.

Brilliant.

Thanks, everyone, so much for your effort.

I look forward to seeing you in another lesson soon.