According to Edward Feser in an essay in First Things, the answer to the question "Does just war doctrine require moral certainty?" is yes.
Feser's essay concludes with this paragraph:
Thus does the tradition require moral certainty if a war is going to be just. Those who admit that the case for the Iran war is problematic are wrong to conclude that Catholics can legitimately disagree over the matter, or that we should suspend judgment. If the war does not meet the standard of moral certainty, then we can be certain that we must oppose it.
Here is an excerpt from earlier in the essay:
Exactly what degree of certainty is required, and why does the tradition require it? Both questions are best answered by way of stock examples. Suppose a hunter considers firing into some bushes. On standard natural law thinking, he may do so only if he is certain there is no other hunter behind them. If he considers it merely probable that there is no one behind them and fires anyway, he is guilty of wrongdoing, even if he doesn’t hit anyone. For his action was reckless. Or consider a jury deciding whether to sentence an accused murderer to be executed. They may not do so if they think it merely probable that he is guilty (as opposed to being certain “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he is guilty). For to leave open the serious possibility of executing an innocent man would be a grave injustice, just as the murder itself is.
This is the degree of certainty that the tradition says governing authorities must have about the justice of a war before initiating it. The reason should be obvious. If it is gravely immoral to risk killing a fellow hunter or a person wrongly accused of a crime, then it is even more gravely immoral to enter into a war that is, at best, only arguably just.
To forestall misunderstandings, note that the claim is not that governing authorities must have absolute or metaphysical certainty (of the kind we have when we know, for example, that 1 + 1 = 2). Nor does the tradition claim that we need to have certainty about every aspect of a war. We need to be morally certain only that a proposed war meets all just war criteria (just cause, lawful authority, right intention, right means, and so on). For example, one of the criteria of a just war is that “there must be serious prospects of success” (as the Catechism puts it). Hence, governing authorities don’t need to be certain of the success. However, they do need to be certain that there are serious prospects of success.
I pretty much agree with the last paragraph. I would add another condition, that war should be a last resort, not a first one. Honest attempts should have been made to settle their differences by non- violent means.
ReplyDeleteThis war is so ridiculous that even a pragmatic warmonger would not have started it. The Mongols invaded Poland but left when the weather became rainy which would bog down their horses and therefore their military advantage. Thank God for practical hordes. The US/Israel Axis of Evil are acting in desperation and panic as their respective projects and futures are in great jeopardy. Israel’s regional dominance and the US’ world hegemony, joined at the hip, may be about to lose the geopolitical sack race.
ReplyDelete"This is the degree of certainty that the tradition says governing authorities must have about the justice of a war before initiating it. "
ReplyDeleteI am sure that Trump, and many of his followers think that every he does is right regardless of how immoral it might appear.
Again, where does that leave soldiers and citizens who are morally certain that the war is unjust? The just war theory seems to be irrelevant to democracies.
At least during times when there is no draft, a conscientious objector wouldn't have to join the military. But the times of "no draft" is in itself a bit amorphous. As far as I know, 18 year old males still have to register. And the Trump administration is making noises about automatic registration by AI. I don't know how one would recuse oneself from that. I hope there is some pushback about that.
DeleteI believe that Iran’s leadership, at least up to this point, has adhered to Catholic Just War Doctrine certainly more than this country. The recently assassinated Supreme Leader said that Iran would not develop a nuclear weapon because it was against God. The US supported and provoked Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran, even providing precursors for Saddam’s chemical weapons which were used against Iranians. Iran, despite its technical prowess, never responded in kind. Iran also did everything it could to avoid war, it was Trump who tore up the nuclear treaty in Trump 1.0 and Biden did not reinstate it. In this respect, Iran is more Catholic Christian than the US or Israel. Unfortunately, Just War Theory has zero influence on the US and Israel, where the purported ends justify any means.
ReplyDeleteIn the New York Times, David French wrote a column that references a different article by Feser (in a different publication) that covers similar ground. In that column, French points out that the US military's formal criteria for determining what types of military engagements are justifiable, are rooted in the same philosophical tradition that led to the development of Catholic just war doctrine. French, who is Christian but not Catholic, argues that the Catholic criteria are still relevant in today's world, even for non-Catholics.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the David French piece (likely behind a paywall, but some of his stuff is available to the general public): https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/23/opinion/trump-iran-unjust-war-catholicism.html
DeleteHere is the Edward Feser article French references. It is in Public Discourse, a publication of the conservative Witherspoon Institute:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2026/03/100437/?campaign_id=292&emc=edit_df_20260423&instance_id=174504&nl=david-french®i_id=87407961&segment_id=218710&user_id=7bba122dbc8acf5289c69a5c9f2867a2