Can War Be Justified? A Philosophical View

It seems that throughout human history, war has been constant, and there were often debates about whether its morality and justification are possible. Many philosophers—from ancient civilization to modern times—always had one query: Can one justify war? This philosophical inquiry deals with the moral dilemmas of war, from ethical considerations to just war theory and consequences arising from armed conflict. So, can war ever be justified in the real sense of this word?

War is defined as a state of armed and usually declared conflict to illustrate excessive aggression, destruction, and usually high mortality. Wars can be caused by territorial disputes, resources, power struggles, religious differences, or ideological conflicts.

Historically, wars have taken on different forms and have been waged for different reasons. An idealistic aspiration for the chief power of the state drove the ancient Greek-Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. In the case of World War II, there was an international conflict for territory and another idealistic aspiration for fascism and communism.

The face of modern warfare has changed with the development of technology, from nuclear weapons to cyber warfare. The wars of the 21st century are no longer only on the battlefield. Rather, they are in terms of unconventional war on terror and insurgencies.

War is a complex ethical consideration as it raises the question of legitimacy by which force is used to achieve certain political objectives. Just war theory, therefore, attempts to form a criteria by which a good war can be defined.

War remains a failure of diplomacy and the failure to understand one another on both sides. As we deal with the consequences of a warlike face in our society today, a critical examination of the root causes is needed to improve even more peaceful resolutions in the future.

The Concept of War in the Ancient World

War was central to the philosophical discourse in ancient times, and it determined the beliefs and principles of the best minds in the world. Heraclitus is well known for his saying, “War is the father of all things.” He has put this fact of its being the source of evolution and transformation in the world. This idea underpins how conflict can transform societies and civilizations.

Socrates discusses the justice of war and how soldiers should morally behave while in battle in Plato’s dialogues. This moral dimension depicts Socrates as a man committed to virtue and integrity even amidst the chaos of war.

In one of his greatest works, The Republic, Plato considered war from the perspective of defending the ideal state and creating the “guardians”—warriors who would become the carriers of justice and wisdom. To Plato, war was the instrument for protecting a society governed by good, noble principles.

Aristotle, Plato’s famous student, also believed that wars were not just a cause of wanton destruction but a way to maintain peace and order. According to him, military valor is one such virtue that tends to maintain the stability and security of communities.

It reflects Aristotle’s emphasis on peace through the strategic use of force and, in a larger sense, correspondingly balancing interests for collective well-being, which has found great resonance in political realism.

These ancient philosophical perspectives give a very deep understanding of the multifarious reality of war, its moral implications, and its instrumental role in transforming a society.

The concept of war was developed in the Middle Ages through the philosophical reflections of outstanding thinkers like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

The concept of “just war” was brought to existence with the ideas of Augustine, a great theologian and philosopher, in his work The City of God.

According to his idea, war can be morally justified if it aims to defend a righteous and just world. According to Augustine, a just war is one in which war is waged for just purposes and declared to maintain peace and justice.

Expanding on Augustine’s thoughts, Thomas Aquinas developed the concept of a just war in his writing Summa Theologica. Aquinas defined a series of criteria that war must fulfill to be considered morally just.

They included right intention, legitimate authority, proportionality in response to aggression, and having a reasonable chance of success. Aquinas then noted that wars waged for self-defense or to restore peace were thus justifiable under some explicit conditions.

In the Middle Ages, these types of philosophical reflections guided rulers and leaders in their moral dilemmas about conflicts and struggles for power.

For example, during the Crusades, which the European powers conducted to reclaim Jerusalem from Muslim domination, concepts such as just war shaped the ideas of how leaders found reasons for their military campaigns while adhering to religious convictions.

The teachings of Augustine and Aquinas were fertile ground for subsequent developments in just war theory and shaped all ethical debates about armed conflict for centuries.

In the modern age, the concept of war has been greatly modified through the influence of world thinkers and the different philosophical perceptions that they impose. For instance, the great Italian political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli viewed war as an integral part of politics and government.

According to Machiavelli, force and warfare were means in the hands of leaders to attain domination and fulfill their political goals. He authored a famous book, The Prince, that was a treatise on practical issues of statecraft—what mattered for authority, from diplomacy to military power.

On the other side of the coin, Thomas Hobbes, in his magnum opus Leviathan, viewed war in new times from a totally different perspective: man lived in the state of nature in a condition of perpetual war against his fellow men.

Hobbes believed that the state of nature called for a very strong central authority, or Leviathan, to prevent chaos and ensure social order. War, for Hobbes, is the lack of civil society, which thus describes the necessity for strong state power to prevent violence in society.

Immanuel Kant, one of the most respected philosophers of ethics and metaphysics, developed the vision-based model for peace-building in his work Perpetual Peace. According to Kant, the achievement of lasting peace could be possible via a kind of federation of free states aspiring towards common interests and a state law that is universally valid.

Kant predicted a world in which conflicts would be avoided through dialogues, and the principles would be based on individual freedom, international cooperation, and respect for human rights.

These are multifaceted philosophical positions on war in the new era, providing complexities surrounding armed conflict and a quest for peace in global relations.

In modernity, great thinkers have philosophized and analyzed the concept of war, the complexities, and moral consequences which define it.

Perhaps no one ever said it better than Prussian General and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), who believed that war is essentially nothing but the continuation of politics with other means.

In this sense, war was some kind of violent instrument that would force the enemy to agree with the will of the opposite. Clausewitz’s perspective here strongly emphasizes warfare as strategic and instrumental in nature, thus achieving political objectives through the tool of force.

Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), whose most famous work is the epic novel War and Peace, dwelt on some philosophical reflections about war, morality, and historical determinism.

In this narrative, Tolstoy explored the human experiences and consequences of war, which are challenged by the very accepted connotations of heroism and valor. He also exposed the ugly faces of armed conflict. His well-knit portrayal exhibits the critical analysis of ethical dilemmas implicit in warfare.

Existentialist philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) and Albert Camus (1913–1960) get involved in dialogues on the topic of war concerning human existence, freedom, and moral choice.

Sartre’s existentialist philosophy underlines the idea of individual responsibility and self-decision, thereby creating an ethical aspect of violence and conflict. On the other hand, Camus is regarded for his philosophical thoughts on absurdism and rebellion against thematic injustice in a world not just full of chaos but utter violence.

While these thinkers have different views on war in modernity, they jointly underline the ethical concerns of modernity regarding armed struggle.

Different philosophers have held various views on the justification of war throughout history. For example, Immanuel Kant, an adherent of deontological ethics, held that going to war was immoral since wars violate the moral maxim, treating individuals as ends themselves rather than as means to an end.

On the other hand, according to Aristotle’s virtue ethics, it is only in the instance where a war would be waged for noble and virtuous reasons, such as a homeland need, that a war would be justified.

An existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre saw war as violence and destruction that necessarily marks human freedom. He thought that individuals had to take responsibility for their actions and always consider the ethical implications when entering into an armed conflict.

Regardless of the diversity of views, respect for human life is evidently a common issue. The indiscriminate loss of lives during war throws out profound moral concerns that override the justifications for war. The devastating consequences for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire indicate the inherent ethical dilemmas in armed conflicts.

Therefore, irrespective of how these philosophical debates on the morality of war are conducted, the value of human life is much greater than any theoretical justification for violence.

The dignity and worth of a person challenges humankind to work unceasingly in seeking peaceful means of settling disputes and defending the basic principles of justice and compassion.

The destruction that war wreaks on human life further proves that, in the quest of morality, peace is of the greatest importance.