Bret Fisk

In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas sets forth three steps for determining whether a given conflict can be considered a “just war.” Aquinas’ first assertion is that war must only be instituted by the proper authority. Second, war must always be waged in the name of a worthy cause—to avenge or punish a wrong or to restore what an enemy has unjustly seized. Finally, war must be prosecuted while maintaining “rightful intention,” namely, “the advancement of good” or “the avoidance of evil.” Several questions come immediately to mind. Who is to say what constitutes the proper authority for declaring war? Don’t all nations consider their various causes to be just—no matter how conflicting they might be? Couldn’t such a vague formulation be used to validate almost any conceivable military adventure? However, because the main thrust of Aquinas’ argument is contained in that third point regarding “rightful intention,” I would maintain that even after more than seven centuries Aquinas’ simple formula has yet to be surpassed either in terms of simplicity or profundity. After acknowledging that “a war may be declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered illicit through a vile intention,” Aquinas quotes Augustine to further illustrate what such vile intention might consist of: “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an implacable and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”