In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Tom Nash to discuss the relevance of just war theory in today’s world. Tom explains how the principles of just war must be carefully considered, especially with the rise of AI in warfare and the moral responsibilities that come with it.
Transcript:
Caller: Is the idea of a just war obsolete?
Tom Nash: I think when one thinks about that and use the term outdated should not be equated with obsolete. That is, when Pope Leo XIV in his recent encyclical Magnifica Humanitarius, said in number 192, he said, Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right of self defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the just war theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. And so outdated does not mean obsolete, but rather, let us consider the principles by which we’re doing so, and we can get into his encyclical how he proposed that in number 199. But the whole point is it should be a last resort, not a first resort. And he notes that in the footnote, the related footnote in the document, he notes how it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right, that is for just war. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even preventive attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. And in this last sentence he references Catechism 2309, which talks about the four conditions for a just war. It points out that indeed, the moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. You know, the. The leaders of countries, generals, et cetera. But here are the four criteria. The damage inflicted by the aggressor or the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain. We can think of World War II as a classic example. With Hitler and his maniacal desire to take over Europe, take over the world, all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. That’s true with Hitler. There must be serious prospects of success. There was In World War II, the United States, especially European theater. The use of arms does not produce evils and disorders graver than the evils to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily evaluated in this condition. And also as an example that the direct attack on non combatants civilians is clearly gravely wrong. We’ve discussed that before on the whole issue of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Cy Kellett: But I think it’s coming up now with autonomous weapons. Yes, here, that. Now I don’t think anybody knows. Well, maybe a few people know how these autonomous weapons are intended to be used and tended to be deployed. But keep a human in the loop is the thing. You hear more and More.
Tom Nash: Well said. Number 199 of his encyclical, the Pope makes this point. These multiple points. It is not enough to invoke a generic type of ethics. Concrete for discernment must be established. He gives three criteria. The first such criterion concerns personal responsibility. When a decision to strike becomes automated or opaque, such as potentially could be with dropping bombs or drones, the risk of advocating responsibility increases. For this reason, the chain of responsibility must be identifiable and verifiable. Those who design, train, authorize and employ technology must be held accountable for their decisions, particularly those who employ it. The second criterion pertains to the moral time frame for making judgments. While AI tends to expedite the decision making processes, speed and efficiency should never be the supreme motivating force for the irreversible decisions made in the context of war. So you don’t act in a precipitous manner. You act in a reasonable and just the one last thing. Third criteria is the identification and protection of civilians. Any technology that facilitates attacks without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict. Target selection, the use of force must not confuse combatants and non combatants, including with drones. He doesn’t say that. I add that. Nor impact the impact, nor ignore the impact on defense of population. So he’s elucidating further, not saying that it’s obsolete, but rather, hey, these are considerations all. All the more. In an AI world where just war theory is presumed to be applied, it
Cy Kellett: does seem to me that it’s necessary to say that one should expect the standards that the Catholic Church applies to moral thinking about warfare, as with almost everything, are higher than the standards that you will find in the secular culture. So as we consider this, we have to ask ourselves, am I thinking as a loyal son or daughter of the Father and of his church, or am I thinking as a modern secular person thinks? And the latter will be less fruitful for us as Christians.
Tom Nash: You mentioned Christian versus secular ethics. That oftentimes in secular ethics, it’ll be like a consequentialism or proportionalism that if you say that you. You can do evil, that good may come from it. So I’m going to shock and awe somebody, hypothetically, and take out some population so as to bring them to their knees. And that’s a problem that would not be acceptable. And thus we cannot talk about deliberately targeting non combatants, annihilating them, but rather that it must be just and proportionate and distinguishing between combatants and non combatants providentially. We had this topic. Edgar, our producer, Edgar Nujano Set this up. Today, Pope Leo XIV issued his message for the 11th World Day of Peace, of prayer, rather the 11th World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation that’s going to be commemorated on December, excuse me, September 1st, very shortly. And in summary, in place of the weapons of war, the God of peace grants us the strength to heal, to reconcile, to build a civilization of love. He points out that war leaves wounds that extend far beyond the battlefield. Tears family apart, forces million to flee their homes, thereby deepening fear, injustice and division. Leaves behind social and ecological destruction that endures for generations. He said war creates wounds that damage the whole fabric of life, harming not only individual persons, communities, but also their broader network of relationships, et cetera. And this is how he says, rooted in distorted desires and misuse of human freedom and power, war stands as a counter witness to the gospel of peace. So these are all things to keep in mind and as to do all we can to avoid war and being a truly last resort, not only concern of the magnitude or the destructiveness of modern weapons, because even Pius XII noted after World War II, hey, this whole thing of just war, in light of the nuclear weapons, you can’t be fighting one with those nuclear weapons.
Cy Kellett: I think the Pope is to some degree saying nobody has all the answers on it, that we need to work on this as a church, to consider the modern context and what does it mean to have just war in the modern conte. So I hope we’ll contribute to that a little bit. Your calls are welcome. One of the striking things about Pope Leo, from the first moments he stepped out in front of the world as the Pope, is that he has emphasized the peace of Christ. And so I think Tom before. And I would ask you for a short answer on this, Tom, because I’ve got a lot of people on the line, but there are people who will make this basic argument that the peace of Christ is incompatible with any kind of engaging in warfare, that Christ has taught us a new way and his way is incompatible with the military life, with military endeavor, with national wars, all of that. So could you just very briefly just address that? I know that’s a big question to address briefly.
Tom Nash: Yeah, I would just say that’s not consistent with Scripture. Scripture does not say we must be total pacifists. There is a right to defend on the micro level, families have a right, fathers have a right to defend their homes, their children, et cetera, as opposed to letting assailants wantonly assail them. Similar on the macro level with regard to war, we have a right to defend ourselves, our country and not be simply passive to somebody like an Adolf Hitler. So this is not the teaching of the Church. The just war theory goes back centuries and centuries of the early church and it’s rooted in the Gospels, rooted in the letters of saints and it’s not
Caller: a betrayal of Christ.
Tom Nash: No, it’s not a betrayal of Christ because Christ points out that there should be justice and he talks about right and wrong and that indeed the last judgment right, I mean that is on the ultimate macro level where we will have to render account for our actions. So he holds people accountable not just in the temporal but ultimately everlasting realm. So too in the temporal realm his church can provide guidance and teaching and so to the temporal realm with the prudential judgments of nations.
Cy Kellett: We are considering the just war theory this hour. If you’ve got questions in that regard, whether you’re Catholic or not. 888-318-7884.