Which is more important – peace or justice? According to the standard interpretation of Just War Theory, there is a ‘presumption against war’; the harm war does is so great that anybody wishing to wage it has to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, and peace – defined as ‘an absence of war’ – is a supreme value. Some philosophers, however, claim that there is no presumption against war. Rather there is a ‘presumption against injustice’. In this view, an absence of war (‘negative peace’) is not true peace at all. In order to produce a ‘positive peace’, in which justice flourishes, it is permissible to fight.
An interesting new survey reveals that the inhabitants of different countries have very different attitudes towards this issue. According to the Halifax/IPSOS Global Snapshot, produced for the 2015 Halifax International Security Forum, ‘over 70% of Americans and Chinese – more than any other country – believe that under certain conditions, war is necessary to achieve justice … [but] only 38% of Russians agree with that statement.’ I have been unable to copy the chart used in the Global Snapshot Report, but have entered the data into an Excel spreadsheet to produce a version which shows the main results, as follows:Irrussianality
Peace or Justice?
Paul Robinson | Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa
7 comments:
war is necessary to achieve justice … [but] only 38% of Russians agree
Russia knows what war is really like.
In the U.S., war is just something you watch on TV.
There is also no doctrine of "just war" in Orthodox Christianity similar to Western Christianity.
Just War Theory and Orthodox Christianity.
Tom what scriptures are those people reading to come up with "pacifist Gospel"?
You dont even have to start with Paul's explanations about authority in Romans:
"For it is God's servant for your good. Now if you should be doing evil, fear, for not feignedly is it wearing the sword. For it is God's servant, an avenger for indignation to him who is committing evil....")
You can go even further back and read the account of Peter's dealings with the libertarian fraudsters Ananias and his wife Saphira back in Acts:
"Now Peter said, "Ananias, wherefore does Satan fill your heart for you to falsify to the holy spirit and to embezzle from the price of the freehold?
4 Did it not, while remaining, remain yours? And, being disposed of, it belonged to you by right. Why is it that you placed this matter in your heart? You do not lie to men, but to God."
5 Now Ananias, hearing these words, falling down, gives up the soul. And great fear came on all those hearing these things.
6 Now rising, the younger men enshroud him, and carrying him out, they entomb him.
7 Now it occurred, after an interval of about three hours, that his wife, not being aware of what has occurred, entered.
8 Now Peter answered her, "Tell me if you took so much pay for the freehold?" Now she said, "Yes, so much."
9 Now Peter said to her, Why is it that you agreed to try the spirit of the Lord? Lo! the feet of those who entomb your husband are at the door, and they shall be carrying you out."
10 Now, instantly, she falls at his feet and gives up the soul. Now entering, the youths found her dead,"
Both struck DEAD (INSTANTANEOUS justice...) .... granted he wasn't wielding a sword but something even better... libertarians should be thankful Peter was never successful their bodies would have been piling up like cordwood...
There are so many Ananias nowadays... From Paul Ryan to televangelists, and all those shit-heads routing for "charity" as solution to everything.
Matt, the many denominations and thousands different sects of within them result from different interpretations of the same material as well as differences over the teachings and works of those who came after the apostles and fathers. There is little homogeneity in "Christian" doctrine.Same with other religions.
In Christianity, the differences appear in the gospels themselves and there is controversy over which Pauline letters are genuine.
And controversy over whether Paul had any special qualifications.
Peace is simple. It requires only that we understand, through experience two things:
- there is no cause greater than a human being. Would you use a baby, as a wheel-chock, to stop your car rolling down the hill?
- peace is not the absence of war; nor is it a sunny day in a quiet place, away from the traffic and work; nor is it a concept. Peace is a feeling that arises within the human heart, an energy - that has the unique power to transform the human personality, enlighten the mind, and reveal the Self.
Place concepts before peace, and you are nowhere.
"The most magnificent achievement of mankind, will be peace on this earth". [Prem Rawat]
Post a Comment