Christian Pacifism and Just-War Tenets: How do They Diverge?

Abstract

RECENT STUDIES Christian ethics have uncovered a of convergence between pacifist convictions and just-war tenets. Although it is easy to assume that just-war ideas and pacifism are wholly incompatible approaches to the morality of warfare, James Childress argues that pacifists and just-war theorists actually share a common starting point: a presumption against the use of force. Childress uses W. D. Ross's language of prima-facie duties to show how pacifism and just-war thought converge. The duty not to kill or injure others (nonmaleficence) is a duty within each approach. For the pacifist, nonmaleficence is an absolute duty admitting of no exceptions. For just-war theorists, nonmaleficence is a prima-facie duty, that is, a duty that is usually binding but may be overridden exceptional circumstances— particularly when innocent life and human rights are at stake. Primafacie duties are not absolute, but place the burden of proof on those who wish to override them when they conflict with other duties, in virtue of the totality of... ethically relevant circumstances. War poses just those exceptional circumstances which the duty of nonmaleficence may be overridden. In this way Childress both highlights the point of contact between pacifism and just-war tenets and reconstructs the essential logic of the jus ad bellum. To override a prima-facie duty, however, is not to abandon it. Such duties continue to function the situation or the subsequent course of action. That is, a prima-facie duty leaves residual effects or moral traces; after overriding such a duty, our conduct must be affected by it. In the context of war, this means that the duty of nonmaleficence exerts a pressure upon the conditions and methods of war. War must be a last resort, pursued for the ends of peace, declared by a competent authority, carried out by limited means, etc. In other words, Childress reconstructs the logic of the jus bello without departing from his