Clik here to view.
In his comment on current just war thinking (Violence: the soft option, 24 May), the Rev Canon Giles Fraser concludes that "just war ought to make as much sense to Christians as just adultery", quoting the theologian Hauerwas. And this would be a perfectly stringent conclusion if just war theory was as he describes it. This, however, is not the case, and it is worrying indeed how Dr Fraser makes use of a – politely speaking – flexible interpretation of the Gospel to disavow a theory that greatly helped to regulate an activity that is not only part of international relations but also of fallen man's nature, namely violence and warfare.
Dr Fraser's article muddles up two completely different spheres – individual and social ethics. It is perfectly all right for a Christian to follow our Lord's example to sacrifice his own life for his fellow men's welfare – there is in fact nothing more heroic that one can do. But supposing that every man should follow this example of Christian ethics is a fine example of moral paternalism. Could it not well be that some citizens – be they Christians or not – just do not want to follow this individual example of Christ, given voluntarily by him, aware that this is a moral teaching which not everybody is able to fulfil?
This is why a state has a certain guarantor's obligation, ensuring that justice is practised and the evildoer prevented from beating the other cheek that someone might not want to turn to his enemy. It is this permanent mess of two different concepts, individual and social ethics, which occurs throughout the text and leads to conclusions which both Christianity and just war theory do not provide.
Surely it is the easiest option to cleanse Christian teaching from all the dirty politics and warfare, and to consider the concept of just war to be as odd as just adultery. But what alternative does Dr Fraser provide instead of the concept of just or unjust war? Tragic necessity? This is a concept much more "flexible" compared to just war theory, which he accuses of being exactly that, and far from being able to mobilise nations to stand up against the unjust.
As a German, aware of our history, I am grateful for a theory that put moral pressure on free and democratic countries like the UK, forcing it to liberate Germany from the tyranny of National Socialism. A tragic decision? I would argue on the contrary: not only a brave and heroic one, but a just one. This sense of justice helped free Germany from Hitler's yoke, and it is the same sense of justice that we owe to failed states of our time.
Sebastian Bieber
Visiting research associate, department of war studies, King's College London, and trainee Roman Catholic priest
• Giles Fraser is right: it's hard to think of an occasion when the application of just war principles prevented a war. Not for nothing, I suppose, does the membership of Cobra exclude the archbishop of Canterbury. This does not mean, however, that the just war tradition serves only to make armed violence palatable to pious sensibilities. It can still have teeth when we try to hold governments to account for wars they have waged – let's hope they are bared in the Chilcot report – and, apart from seeking to restrain from war, the tradition has much to say about restraint in war. Its principles of discrimination and proportionality are deployed daily in the debate about air strikes over Libya.
Canon Robert Titley
Richmond upon Thames
• Giles Fraser's argument is well taken that "just war" theory can and has been used to justify all sorts of unjustifiable attacks for the most "elastic" of reasons. Not to attack his point, could I note that there are tougher versions of just war theory, notably by an early woman writer, Christine de Pisan, in her Feats of Arms and Chivalry, circa 1408-10. As well as the requirements that St Augustine set out on the serious evil and prospect of success required, she wrote that the "prince" must offer terms of restitution, and must summon the adversary and so inform him of them. Then, and only if the adversary refused, might the war be undertaken. Pisan is also good on the ruin caused by war. Many women theorists ignored still in academe and the church are better on issues of war, peace and militarism than their male counterparts of the same time.
Lynn McDonald
London