fandomhigh | War Theory, Thursday, 4th Period

Entry tags:

war theory

War Theory, Thursday, 4th Period

Honor leaned against the edge of the desk at the front of the classroom as the students filed in, half-standing, half-sitting. She wore civvies today -- khakis and a fitted tee, her long hair hanging free around her face. Her left arm seemed permanently bent at the elbow and she held it close in to her body; it didn't seem to move at all, even as she did. Strangely, Nimitz was nowhere to be seen today, and her bodyguard, Andrew LaFollet hovered in the background.

"All right, everyone, please come in and take your seats so we can get started." She forced a smile and waited until everyone was seated. She then slipped off the desk and rounded the corner to the board. There, she wrote a timeline, similar to the one from the previous class. She added a dot somewhere around 1300 AD, labelling it "Summa Theologica."

"You were instructed last week to review the Summa Theologica, Question 40, Article 1 -- 'Whether it is always sinful to wage war?' For those of you who weren't curious enough to, ah, Google St. Thomas Aquinas, we'll start with a little background information.

"Thomas Aquinas was born into a noble family in the Kingdom of Naples between 1225 and 1227 CE. He was sent to university when he came of age, and studied the liberal arts, as suggested by Plato -- grammar, logic, natural sciences, music, mathematics, geometry, and astronomy. When he made his first overtures to join the Order, he was captured by his own family and held as they tried to discourage his vocation. Finally, after two years, they relented.

"As a member of the Order of St. Dominic, St. Thomas became noted for his lessons, travelling widely as a professor. He eventually died in 1274, and was canonized by John XXII in 1323.

"Summa Theologica, which you read in part for this class, is the work that 'immortalized' him among Western thinkers. It, combined with the work of St. Augustine, from whom Aquinas worked, became the foundation for Western thought in morality -- especially morality in warfare. Question 40, Article 1 deals specifically with jus in bello or justice in war.

"Today we're going to discuss three questions. One: who, according to Aquinas, has the authority to wage and execute war? Two: What are his qualifications on a 'just war'? And three: Are there similarities between the ideas presented by Thucydides, Sun Tzu, and Aquinas? If so, what are they?"

Honor smiled. "I know that's a lot to digest, so we'll take it slowly." She leant back against the desk and allowed the students to jump into their discussion; she chose mostly to act as moderator, not feeling quite her usual self today. With five minutes left to class, her eyes flitted to the clock and she drew the session to a close.

"Your assignment for next week is to review the Declaration of Independence. Come prepared with a question on the material to pose to your classmates...and be sure to pay close attention to the charges the Continental Congress levels at King George.

"Class dismissed."

[Once again, I am stuck posting by e-mail. If the first person to sign in would establish the "Sign In" thread, and the first person to respond to the discussion would establish the "Discussion" thread, I would appreciate it. If you feel the need, you can also set up a "Sidebar" thread, for all those little off-topic comments between yourselves. I'll handle the after class stuff when I get home this evening. Thanks, guys!]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Peter Pevensie

Draco Malfoy

Seely Booth

Setsuna Sakurazaki

Pip Bernadette

Schrodinger

Matilda Wormwood

Isabel Evans

"Aquinas determined that only the sovereign has the authority to wage war," Peter said thoughtfully. "But he doesn't clarify how exactly the sovereign is determined. Obviously the King or Queen, but what about in democracies like the United States?"

Setsuna frowned a bit. "I always figured that, at the time Aquinas was writing, democracies like the United States were virtually unheard of. So it wouldn't have even been a consideration."

"No, but if he's to be applicable to the present time, the question needs to be determined," Peter replied. He looked back through his notes. "Though I suppose 'those who are in supreme authority' could rather cover it."

"Well, we've been hired by less," Pip said, scratching his head.

"Though the point doesn't really apply unless you only accept jobs those in positions of 'supreme authority,'" Peter pointed out. "Which...somehow I doubt?"

"Well, we have, but it's really rare. Would it count in corporate warfare, then, if so ordered by a CEO? We've been hired by those before."

"I doubt that Aquinas' definition would cover corporate warfare..." Peter said.

"What if it involved actualy fighting? Like with guns?"

"It still wouldn't fulfill his requirements," Peter replied. "It's not the weapons that make the difference, but the reason. A business isn't a sovereign country."

"Some of them are more powerful," Pip said. "Some of them act like countries of their own."

Peter looked at Pip then quoted: "For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior." He paused. "I think between that and 'authority of the sovereign' it's crystal that Aquinas is referring to countries. Not corporations however many guns they have."

"Well then, how do you define country?" Pip asked. "Aquinas is talking in dated terms."

Honor watched the discussion, rubbing the tip of her nose with an index finger. "While I believe there are rules of warfare to be applied in all forms, I hardly think that St. Thomas was addressing the, ah, corporate community. He was, rather, addressing leaders of nation-states, and advising those Christian rulers on their abilities to plan and execute a just war.

"If you do attempt to apply the theories Aquinas illustrates, I think you'll find that the corporations, because they are not the appointed rulers of an actual nation-state, cannot exercise jus ad bello, or the right to war. They would, under Aquinas' theories, lack the proper authority."

"A just war is one that avenges wrongs, or when a nation is punished for refusing to make amends, or to take back something that has been unjustly seized," Isabel listed.

"Which seems a little arbitrary to me," Schroinger said.

"Why? They're all legitimate reasons."

"Well, yeah. According to him. We must judge our reasons for going to war by what Thomas said hundreds of years ago?"

"Give me a legitimate reason why those same reasons don't apply right now then," she said. "Just because it was written a few hundred years ago doesn't make it any less right."

"Define 'wrongs', for me. Then define what can make a seizing of a nation 'unjust'. And who decides when a nation needs to make amends?"

"I'd say wrong would be when the actions of one country directly interfere in the affairs of another," Isabel said. "In smaller, simpler terms then, I suppose you wouldn't care if I just arbitrarily moved into your room, took over your things and told you tough, it was all mine now. Finally, in theory that's the purpose of a unified body like the UN."

"I share a room, so you'd have as equally a good chance of taking Billy's stuff as mine. But that's beside the point really. What if I'm the leader of a country and I am slowly but surely exterminating a certain group of people from my country. Now, I'm not infringing on any other country, and your UN is not doing anything about it. By your definitions, yours would be an unjust war if you invaded me."

"Welcome to the wonderful world of nuance then. Because intervening for the sake of the people is certainly worth doing, whether or not it's considered wrong by my definition."

"Nuance? That isn't nuance. That's a reason outside yours and apparently Thomas Aqunias' definitions. I'm not morally presumptuous enough to decide whether it's right or wrong, but you have to admit that is a possibillity not covered by Thomas' ideas of a just war."

"In this case? I am. So if we're going to play strictly by the defintions, I'll be quite happy to be wrong."

"Good for you! So we agree that these definitions are arbitrary?"

"Sure," Isabel smiled. "If that's what you need." Turning away in dismissal she focused on her notes.

"The definitions are arbitrary, just as most morals are regarded as arbitrary. There is a difference, however, between what is considered rational, and what is considered reasonable." Honor pursed her lips as she regarded first Schrodinger, then the class. "For example -- the 1939 invasion of Poland. Claiming the need for more 'lebensraum', or living space, for the 'Aryan nation', Hitler rolled into Poland with an illegal German army. It was, in his mind, a very reasoned argument.

"It had long been established, however, that whenever one state sought to overstep its boundaries, to take more land without provocation or right, the other states of Europe would step in to challenge the interloper; by the ethics of the time -- and those since -- it simply wasn't a reasonable step to take. Britain, by the agreements made, and the Western tradition, was fully justified in coming to Poland's defense."

Honor was moving a bit stiffly, and Andrew seemed concerned. She waved him off. Stubbornly, he hovered like a mother hen as she packed her things.

Peter approached Honor after class was over, paper in hand. "My Lady?" He tilted his head towards her. "Are you hurt?"

Honor gave a wry smile. "Nothing that can't be cured," she replied. "I got a little over enthusiastic in the dojo last night."

Peter smiled back. "I'm glad it's not anything serious." He handed her three pages, closely handwritten in neat script. "There you are, ma'am. I don't think I agree with Hobbes' very much."

"I didn't really expect you to. In all honesty, I think he's a bit too pessimistic." She took the paper, flipped through it, and scanned the content. It seemed very well done on first glance...but then, she hadn't been expecting much else from him.

"A bit?" Peter asked. "That's a bit of an understatement, you don't think? He actually used the term 'nasty, brutish, and short' to describe life. Even if it was under Cromwell, that's a more than a bit pessimistic."

Honor bit her lower lip to keep from grinning. "Sarcasm, Mister Pevensie." She allowed the grin. "And yes, I find Hobbes to be a bit 'brutish' himself. He's certainly a reflection of his time, but I wonder how hard it must have been to study politics with such a negative attitude toward his fellow man."

Peter nodded thoughtfully. "I am, however, happy that he consigned himself to studying and writing about politics instead of actually governing with his theories."

"While there are a few things we can learn from him, I tend to agree. Living under his rule would have -- in my opinion -- been absolutism of the worst kind: living without hope under a ruler who honestly believed that might made right." She shook her head. "Or that someone who ruled stayed in power simply by right of being there, regardless of how they treated their subjects."

Peter's face hardened with memories of the White Witch. "Yes, my Lady," he said with a sharp nod. "There's little one can do with that but stand in rebellion."

"And do what we can to help those rebelling against an unjust ruler." She gave an enigmatic smile. "Thank you for your hard work, Sir Peter...and for your insight."

"We do all that we can, my Lady," Peter replied definitively. He nodded. "You're welcome and thank you for your time, ma'am."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

War Theory, Thursday, 4th Period

Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Re: Sign In

Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Re: Question One

Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

Re: Question Two

After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class

Re: After Class