Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"One of the best contemporary writers on philosophy" National Review
"A terrific writer" Damian Thompson, Daily Telegraph
"Feser... has the rare and enviable gift of making philosophical argument compulsively readable" Sir Anthony Kenny, Times Literary Supplement
Selected for the First Things list of the 50 Best Blogs of 2010 (November 19, 2010)
About Me
- Edward Feser
- I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective.
Followers
Main website
Books by Edward Feser
- Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature
- All One in Christ: A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory
- Aristotle’s Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science
- Five Proofs of the Existence of God
- By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (with Joseph M. Bessette)
- Neo-Scholastic Essays
- Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction
- Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics
- Aquinas
- The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
- Locke
- The Cambridge Companion to Hayek
- Philosophy of Mind
- On Nozick
Articles by Edward Feser available online
Recommended philosophers' websites
- Alexander Bird
- Alexander Hall
- Alexander Pruss
- Alfred Freddoso
- Angus Menuge
- Brian Davies
- Brian Leftow
- Christopher Brown
- Christopher Martin
- Crawford Elder
- David Braine
- David Oderberg
- David Stove
- David Twetten
- Dennis Des Chene
- E. J. Lowe
- Eleonore Stump
- Francis Beckwith
- Gaven Kerr
- Gyula Klima
- Howard Robinson
- J. P. Moreland
- J. R. Lucas
- James F. Ross
- James Lennox
- John Haldane
- John Hawthorne
- Jonathan Sanford
- Joshua Hochschild
- Katherin Rogers
- Kathrin Koslicki
- Kit Fine
- Lloyd Gerson
- Lydia McGrew
- Mark Anderson
- Michael Gorman
- Michael Pakaluk
- Michael Rota
- Monte Ransome Johnson
- Nancy Cartwright
- Patrick Toner
- Paul Symington
- Robert Koons
- Roger Scruton
- Stephen Boulter
- Stephen Mumford
- Thomas Pink
- Timothy McGrew
- Timothy Pawl
- Travis Dumsday
- Tuomas Tahko
- Tyler McNabb
- Walter Ott
- William Jaworski
- William Lane Craig
- William Vallicella
Aristotelico-Thomism and Neo-Scholasticism: Online resources
- Actus Essendi
- Alan Aversa's Aristotelian Thomism Page
- Aristotelian philosophy of nature
- Center for Thomistic Studies
- Centre for Thomistic Studies (Australia)
- Classical Theism Forum
- Coalition for Thomism
- In medias PHIL
- Institute for the Study of Nature
- Ite ad Thomam
- Leo Elders Home Page
- Maritain Center online archive of Thomistic and Neo-Scholastic works
- Mortimer J. Adler Archive
- Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange: A Biographical Sketch
- Resources on Aristotelian Thomism
- Society for Aristotelian Studies
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
- Thomas Aquinas in English: A Bibliography
- Thomas International Project
- Thomistica.net
- Twenty-Four Thomistic Theses
News, politics, and culture
Catholic websites
- Big Pulpit
- Catholic Encyclopedia
- Catholic Herald
- Catholic World Report
- Crisis Magazine
- Edward Peters
- Fisheaters
- Fr. John Hunwicke
- Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
- Fr. Ray Blake
- FSSP
- Jimmy Akin
- Joseph Shaw
- Latin Mass magazine
- National Catholic Register
- Roman Theological Forum
- Rorate Caeli
- The Catholic Thing
- Una Voce America
- Vatican
Blogs
- American Catholic
- ArmaVirumque
- Bruce Charlton
- Daily Nous
- Dale Tuggy
- First Thoughts
- Hilary White
- Ignatius Press Insight Scoop
- Just Thomism
- Kausfiles
- Keith Burgess-Jackson
- Leslie Marsh
- Martin Cothran
- Matt and Madeleine Flannagan
- Mike Flynn
- On the Square
- Paul Adams
- Power Line
- Prosblogion
- Roger's Rules
- Siris
- Stacy Trasancos
- Taking Hayek Seriously
- The Corner
- The Smithy
- Victor Reppert
- What's Wrong with the World
- William M. Briggs
- Zippy Catholic
Can we at least rejoice with the Venezuelan people who have longed to see the day that Maduro is removed from power? The results from the Trump administration's action will have more good than bad. Removing Russian and Chinese involvement from the Western hemisphere will be a good thing. The Trump administration will make war on the drug cartels in Mexico and Columbia and the results will be good. Communism will end in Cuba and that will be good. I grieve that you are unable to rejoice when so many of your political allies are rejoicing.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you didn't read the interview -- or even the news, for that matter -- but so far only Maduro is gone, not his government. So the situation for the Venezuelan people hasn't actually changed. That's the whole point. Maybe things will work out -- I certainly hope so -- but until we hear of a concrete plan for making that happen, victory dances are premature, to say the least.
DeleteThere's no rejoicing with an immoral act. A Catholic should know this.
DeleteDoes the end justify the means? Not in Catholic theology.
DeleteApprehending Maduro was not an immoral act. Further, there is the following. Assertion 1: The end does not justify the means. Assertion 2: We must never celebrate an end achieved by unjust means. Assertion 2 simply does not follow from assertion 1. It is a non sequitur.
DeleteAnonymous at 2:53,
DeleteYou are entirely missing the point, which is that until we are given specifics about exactly how all that is going to be realized, this is all just wishful thinking. Happy fantasies cannot constitute a fulfilment of the just cause condition.
Ed,
DeleteVenezuelans rejoicing at Maduro facing justice for his crimes is not a fantasy; it is a reality.
For goodness' sake, when did IQs drop so precipitously?
DeleteYes, they rejoiced, quite rightly. But it doesn't mean anything unless he's replaced by something better, and so far we've had no explanation of exactly how that's going to happen, only fantasies about how nice it will be.
Do you think that the present government in Venezuela will continue to be as much of an adversary to the U.S. as Maduro was? I do not. There are lots of reports that the Islamic regime in Iran may be coming to an end (partly as a result of another brilliantly successful military operation last year in Iran, but the Maduro operation also gives hopes to those who oppose Ayatolla Khameni). Russia and China are losing key allies. The flow of harmful drugs to the U.S. which causes thousands of deaths has already significantly slowed--that is a reality. I am willing to bet that the Trump Administration will continue to reduce that flow of harmful drugs dramatically and that the net results will be beneficial, even if some of the actions taken don't meet the criteria of Catholic just war doctrine.
DeleteAll kinds of things are "beneficial" but immoral, so unless all the conditions of just war doctrine are actually met, such realpolitik considerations are irrelevant to the morality of the conflict.
DeleteEd! You are such a nasty guy. “When did IQs drop?”
DeleteGood question. Thank God you’re not in charge. Maybe listen to the people who live there and don’t cynically assume the worst.
Your language is why I’m being harsh in return. You insult gratuitously. You’re a Catholic version of DBH. Bully.
In addition, it's worth mentioning that many of the videos of "Venezuelans celebrating" appear to be AI-generated fakes, so they aren't even evidence at all, regardless of their relevance. While Maduro is a dictator, it's also false to suggest that the average Venezuelan hates the whole idea of the Bolivarian Revolution and would prefer to live under an American-led oligarchy. Venezuela has an interesting and deeply-entrenched system of communal governance, and while I can't speak directly to their experience, it would seem like there's a significant level of public buy-in to that idea, even if they don't like the Maduro dictatorship.
DeleteYour language is why I’m being harsh in return. You insult gratuitously.
DeleteThat is not a fair remark. In general, I do not respond harshly to someone except when he has first been unreasonably nasty himself.
Having said that, I may have been too harsh in replying to that particular comment, for which I apologize. I have found Twitter to be an especially nasty environment this week, and I may have let my annoyance at the tons of garbage I've been seeing their color my perceptions of that particular comment (which annoyed me because it appeared simply to ignore something I had already addressed in the interview). The environment here is in general much healthier than the one there, but if I've had an unpleasant time there the effect can carry over when I drop in to see what's going on here.
I have found Twitter to be an especially nasty environment this week,
DeleteI don't know how you can stand it. I choose not to.
There is nothing more pathetic than seeing sanctmonious bullies getting their deserts. Trump and Vance have lowered the bar to piracy, denigration of others and jungle logic. They are going to look a lot less dignified than Maduro when they get treated as they deserve. The corollary of unjust aggression is legitimate defence. Down with the pirates say I.
ReplyDeleteHear, hear. While we're at it, let's get all Great Power influence out of Latin America! Let them forge their own destiny!
DeleteThere is nothing more pathetic than seeing sanctmonious bullies getting their deserts.
DeleteBut then why would that be pathetic: since we don't like bullies and don't want them to prosper, why would their getting their just deserts be pathetic? Shouldn't we be celebrating when they get their just deserts?
They are going to look a lot less dignified than Maduro when they get treated as they deserve.
I would not want to be owed the treatment Trump deserves. However, I strongly suspect he won't get his just deserts until he dies. If we are to wait until WE get to see it, we might be busy dealing with our own justly deserved punishments (whether temporal or permanent.)
And the Republican Party is solidly behind Trump.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans will not support him if he tries to use "military options" to acquire Greenland, as he was saying yesterday.
DeleteJudging from some of the psychotics I'm seeing on X, many of them will support it. But yes, probably most will not, including most GOP politicians.
DeleteProf in your opinion how would the proportionality criteria be evaluated here, are we measuring the number of unintended casualties it took to get Maduro against Maduro's crimes as a dictator?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that the thirty-two Cuban guards who died are not innocent victims, don't you? Maduro hired Cubans because Venezuelans hated him.
DeleteYou could briefly respond to my query also Prof :)
DeleteHi Norm, that’s another example of how we have not been given a clear and thought out explanation of the scope and rationale of the conflict. Given that the regime has plausibly been accused of extrajudicial killings, torture, and the like, as well as narco-trafficking (which puts lives at risk), some loss of life among the military personnel protecting Maduro would in principle be justifiable. But the regime’s crimes are not anything like what (say) Saddam was guilty of, so that a full-scale invasion (were that to occur) could easily spiral into something way out of proportion to the evils the U.S. would be responding to. As to the deaths that occurred in nabbing Maduro, if the end result of U.S. engagement were the end of the regime’s human rights violations, those deaths would arguably be justifiable. But so far the regime is still there, and the person in charge has herself been accused of being complicit in those human rights violations (https://reason.com/2026/01/06/who-is-delcy-rodriguez-venezuelas-acting-dictator/). It should also be added that a military raid in which around 75 people die is difficult plausibly to characterize as a mere law enforcement operation rather than an act of war (as many of the administration’s defenders have been doing).
DeleteThanks Prof
DeleteInternationals more or less allow that there can be a condition of use of force that is in between the scale of a true police action and a war. In older times, a tribe might make a "raid" on an asset, and not kick off a war. In more modern times, a UN approved "intervention" like the one in Libya in 2011, with limited objectives. Anti-terrorism operations too.
DeleteJust war theory would still apply to there being suitable just cause, proper authority, and reasonable hope for attaining a better resolution. But there could be lower standards for what qualifies as just cause, because a lesser amount of violence is involved.
One finds a certain irony in speculating how the U.S.A. in general and the Trump administration in particular would react if some other country took it upon themselves to execute the outstanding arrest warrant against one Benjamin Netanyahu.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering why Pentin and Feser have framed this operation as a war. It looks like the arrest of a criminal dictator to me, not a war -- which seems to render the whole analysis in relation to JWT moot. In any case, I think an explanation of why this should even count as 'war' (just or otherwise) is certainly needed. From what I've read about Venezuela's recent history, Chavez and Maduro were massively destructive leaders and horrendously unjust from the standpoint of Catholic (or any sound) social justice doctrines. Effectively comparing the massively destructive crimes perpetrated by those two to the triviality of the 'mass destruction' incidental to the use of automobiles seems beyond silly.
ReplyDeleteI explained why in the interview. You cannot look at the operation to nab Maduro in isolation. The actions that led up to it, and the military actions that Trump has said might follow, are characteristic of war, and Trump himself has explicitly characterized what he is up to as war. Also, as to just the operation itself, sending the military in to abduct another country's head of state is of its nature an act of war, whether or not our government calls it that and whether or not there may have been some legal basis for doing it. If another country tried doing that with Trump, nobody would say "Well, I disagree with their legal argument, but since they gave one, it isn't an act of war."
DeleteAlso, re: "mass destruction," you are completely missing the point of the automobile analogy, and the issue has nothing to do with how awful they have been. I was talking about characterizing fentanyl as a "weapon of mass destruction," which it is not in the legal sense, in part because it is not a weapon in the legal sense in the first place. The car analogy was meant to illustrate that the number of people killed by some object does not by itself entail that it is a WMD.
You don't need to look at it in isolation to recognize that it was not an act of war. The US is in fact not at war with Venezuela. Want to deny that??
DeleteRe. "mass destruction," you are completely missing the point that "WMD" is a term that is perfectly well susceptible to broader than standard (i.e., non-conventional) usage and there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made that sth like fentanyl can be used to 'perpetrate mass destruction.' So insisting that there is something sacred about the standard denotation of the term that must not be violated by a necessarily 'dishonest'(?) broader usage is silly -- like, if it was a 'real WMD' (in the conventional sense) then that would totally change things, i.e., what is actually fundamentally at stake in removing the noxious man in question from ruling over Venezuela? And in any case the analogy with the 'massive destructiveness' of automobiles remains beyond ridiculous, for obvious reasons.
In three elements of morality, circumstances are secondary to moral object and intention. As mentioned by Catechism of the Catholic Church,
ReplyDelete"1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil."
https://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I
This is also affirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas saying (just pasting some excerpts),
"Article 11. Whether every circumstance that makes an action better or worse, places a moral action in a species of good or evil?
Reply to Objection 1. In things which can be more or less intense, the difference of more or less does not change the species: thus by differing in whiteness through being more or less white a thing is not changed in regard to its species of color. In like manner that which makes an action to be more or less good or evil, does not make the action differ in species."
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2018.htm#article11
One of my comments when reading the interview is that even if there is not that much of realistic hope of success or concrete plan, it seems that it falls under circumstances, not moral object. That is, the moral object is not intrinsically evil, and the action done as led by President Trump (note, I am a Filipino that is trying to understand this situation from Catholic moral theology perspective) is justified under moral object. It seems that not all conditions in just war fall under moral object since others fall in circumstances and intention.
If that is the case, the lack of realistic hope of success or concrete plan doesn't mean that what President Trump did is morally wrong. Rather, it's morally good, but it may be less good (just as less white is still white based on analogy by St. Thomas Aquinas).
After all, we can also make other situations like being kidnapped by many people, and defending oneself by hurting and restraining other people even if, after doing so, I was still not able to escape where I was placed. Even if this is not "just war", but the point here is that my lack of success in actually escaping falls under circumstances, not that I did a morally wrong action based on moral object. The same can be said about the actions of President Trump.
It does not seem to me that you properly understand the relationship between object, intention, and circumstances, but I’ll put that aside for present purposes, because the more straightforward problem here is that you misunderstand just war doctrine. You seem to think that as long as the “just cause” condition is met, then a war is morally legitimate and that a failure to meet the other conditions somehow doesn’t change that (but perhaps just makes it ill-advised or something). No. Just war doctrine says that ALL the conditions must be met in order for a war to be morally legitimate. For example, if Bush had said “I have no real plans for what happens after Saddam is gone, and Iraq may well fall into a civil war that costs hundreds of thousands of lives,” he couldn’t have claimed that the war was still morally acceptable merely because the cause of removing Saddam was just.
DeleteThank you, appreciate your reply. It helped me to reflect more on just war, and some issues perhaps with my understanding of three elements of morality. If you have a blog post regarding object, intention, and circumstances, it's something I may also consider reading.
DeleteThanks!
Hi Chris
DeleteAlthough not related to Just War, Thomistic writers like Fr Stephen Brock and Dr Steven Jensen have done really good work on this topic of Object, Intention and Circumstances. You can find their books on Amazon. Good and Evil actions is a great book by Dr Steven Jensen, so is Fr Brock's articles which I think you can find online.
Because the president and some of his allies so freely engage in this sort of irresponsible rhetoric, it is very hard to take seriously the suggestion that they are concerned to act justly where war is concerned. They have done enormous damage to their own credibility on these matters, and have no right to complain when critics question their motives.
ReplyDeleteThis may be the most telling point made in the interview: Trump lies so often, and mashes up claims into half-truths and absurdities, that nobody can well trust him when he asserts a motive as being the real motive. But this is needed in order to enter into war justly (or, frankly, to transact business as a nation's leader justly).
Unfortunately, Prof, about half of your other points are weakened by several defects. (1) Sure, Trump has not yet said how he expects to get rid of the remaining socialists in charge and return V to an orderly state instead of a(nother) failed socialist state. But it's early days, and there's no special reason he MUST telegraph his moves to opponents. The Maduro nab was an extremely complex maneuver involving many dozens of separate force units and timing constraints met, which undoubtedly took the input of many dozens of planners: do you REALLY think that none of them asked (or was charged with planning for) "what about after Maduro is gone"? Odds are, Trump has some sort of plan. It might not be just, but he probably has one, and simply isn't telling his enemies what it is.
(2) Just authority: in the US, the president's authority to engage in warlike actions is complicated by the 1973 War Powers act. In addition, the operations prior to the nab Maduro (taking out drug boats and seizing oil ships) almost certainly fell under policing authority, not war-making. Pres. Biden is the one who posted an award for information leading to the arrest of Maduro, also a policing action. And international law does permit one country to enter into another non-enemy country to pursue a terrorist if the non-enemy country can't or won't handle him.
(3) Though Trump's assertions about fentanyl being a WMD are silly, his assertions about the cartels being terrorists is NOT silly. Not because the drugs "terrorize" US families who worry that their teens might get them, but because the cartels literally use terror methods to undermine judges, juries, witnesses, prison guards, and police here in the US, and use even worse methods in other countries to force peasants to work for them, to alter voting, to buy politicians.
I don't for a minute think Trump's methods here are above reproach, not at all. But half the complaints raised are inadequately formulated or researched.
Hello Tony, to reply to your points:
Delete1. The problem is that the more ambitious the aims for a post-Maduro Venezuela, the more implausible it will be that one could achieve them without a major U.S. land force commitment and the possibility of chaos and massive loss of life. To be sure, at the most non-ambitious extreme, they could just leave the current regime in place and require of them merely that they cooperate more on things like oil. That would be easy enough to do, but it would expose the “We’re liberating Venezuela” propaganda as a lie, and the war won’t meet the “right intention” conditions – or, for that matter, the “just cause” condition, because (for reasons I’ve explained in earlier commentary on this topic) oil access is not a plausibly just casus belli.
On the other extreme, they could go for a full Iraq-style regime change operation, which would almost certainly be a bloody quagmire. I doubt they intend that. Maybe they’re sincere about liberating Venezuela from tyrannical rule and they’ll carry out some intermediate level operation to further that aim. But that will be very hard to do without the whole thing spiraling into the highly problematic deeper commitment. Anyway, the problem is precisely that nobody knows because no clear and consistent explanation has been given of exactly what the overall point and endgame of the conflict is. The rhetoric is all over the place. You’re basically saying that we should simply have faith that, whatever they have in mind, the government has planned things out adequately. Sorry, the fact that not even the aim has been made clear – let alone the plan for realizing it – should make us less trusting, not more. Even apart from that, the recent history in Afghanistan and Iraq alone should prevent any rational person from taking such an attitude. And in this case we have the added factor that the ultimate decision lies with an erratic egomaniac given to chronic lying.
2. The operations prior to nabbing Maduro were rationalized as responses to “terrorism,” which would put them under Congress’s “war on terror” era AUMF. The rationalization was bogus, but that was the rationalization. That would make them military engagements, not law enforcement. (Law enforcement doesn’t just blow boats up, for example.) Furthermore, acts like closing Venezuelan airspace and seizing a tanker are acts of war, whether or not one uses the word “war” in carrying them out. But there is also the fact that Trump has in fact used that word, as I noted in the interview. And he’s threatened further military action, which (since Maduro is already in custody) could hardly be characterized as a mere law enforcement operation aimed at capturing Maduro. So the question of congressional authorization is indeed very much to the point.
3. I have myself said that cartel actions of the specific kind you mention do plausibly count as terrorism. Indeed, I said that in the interview, and wrote a whole article about it for Postliberal Order. But it isn’t relevant to the specific operations that have been taking place with respect to Venezuela (e.g. attacks against the boats).
So it seems that if things turn out well, then the conditions for JWT had been met and if they turn out poorly then not.
DeleteSince Trump has not revealed details of his plan, no one can know. So far, it appears the country is still stable, so not disastrous yet. And apparently there have been background negotiations with people within the Maduro regime before this event which indicates at least some planning had been done.
We can hope that key Maduro holdovers have been offered a safe off-ramp and allow free and fair elections which includes allowing political dissent.
I am wondering now if the US justly entered WW2. We declared war on Germany December 11, 1941 but the first plan put forward for post-war Germany was the Morgenthau Plan which was formulated in 1944.
DeleteSo it seems if a having a pre-war plan for a post-war victory is a requirement for JWT we failed.
"So it seems that if things turn out well, then the conditions for JWT had been met"
DeleteNo, that doesn't follow. If I fire a shotgun into a crowded room in order to kill a housefly and by good fortune it turns out that no one is killed, that does not entail that my reckless action was somehow justifiable. I just got lucky, that's all. Similarly, if a country does does not try to meet just war conditions when going to war, but things by chance nevertheless turn out well, that doesn't retroactively make the initial decision morally unproblematic.
bmiller,
DeleteThe problem is that Catholic just war doctrine is an almost impossibly high standard (many of the crusades do not fit the criteria, yet Ed supports the crusades) and is not hugely relevant to the question of whether a war brings better results than not fighting it. Here we have the irony of leftist nations at the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States trying to advance a joint statement condemning Maduro's detention, the more conservative governments such as Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Trinidad & Tobago opposing and thus blocking the statement, and Ed apparently siding with the former rather than the latter. By the way, the new governments in Chile and Honduras will be allied with the conservative block.
Sure. I agree with the analogy, but do we actually know that the plan is reckless?
DeleteIf it is not reckless, then is JWT being satisfied?
What would make the plan not-reckless?
@Bmiller, regarding WW2 surely the post-war plans of that kind are mainly relevant if one intends to destroy the opposing power—even before then the US must have had some idea of what acceptable surrender conditions would have been for the Germans even if they did not expect to be responsible for giving the defeated country a new government.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteI don't think that Ed is wrong regarding the extreme examples from both ends he's brought up, but what is actually going on is most likely somewhere in the middle. It is good that people like him weigh in on the current situation and give us his opinion on how relates to JWT. But if you read him carefully, I don't think he is unconditionally condemning the administration's actions but only if they have certain ends in mind that contradict what are considered morally acceptable ends.
It appears he leans toward believing that Trump's actions are incompetent and/or immoral, but that has not been proven yet.
I suppose no matter what there will be Trump supporters that will claim his plan is genius whether or not it works out and there will be Trump critics that will claim his plan is incompetent and evil whether it works out or not. Both will claim it was only luck if their predictions fail. Ed usually navigates the middle ground so I don't see him in either camp.
OA Police,
DeleteFrom our vantage point in history we can see that the way the allies handled the aftermath of WWI led to the rise of WWII (at least according to the Nazi's). So maybe Roosevelt was thinking that we shouldn't do it that way again, but as far as I could find no formal plan was put forward till 3 years after fighting started.
Most everyone doesn't want a repeat of the Iraq/Afghanistan "victory" in this case either. So I think its reasonable to expect the administration has little incentive to repeat past mistakes.
But the question I'm interested in regards JWT and what counts as a reasonable pre-war plan for making things better. It seems both the Roosevelt and Trump administrations were/are in the same place as engaging in action without a detailed plan in place other than not repeating the last past mistake. Will both have failed to have met JWT criteria?
even before then the US must have had some idea of what acceptable surrender conditions would have been for the Germans even if they did not expect to be responsible for giving the defeated country a new government.
DeleteActually, this does not appear to be the case. Congress declared war on Japan and Germany, and nothing was debated as to what kinds of "acceptable surrender conditions" at the time. It was simply assumed (probably accurately) that going to war meant "until they submit" but what kind of submission was not discussed.
bmiller has a point about this tenet of Just War Theory as it interacts with actual historical fact. In the grit of actual conditions, a country acting in defense against unjust aggression doesn't really think (or at least not much) in terms of "what terms for a peace settlement will constitute a better state of affairs than the ones that precipitated this unjust aggression," it's more like "let's get rid of them". Dead bullies usually don't bully any more.
It seems like it's really only the "optional" wars where you even have some modest degree of freedom about whether to enter the war or not do so, where you might be able to achieve a better (more just) set of conditions by fighting a war, that really FIT with this criterion of JWT. Survival is assumed to be an acceptable goal and you don't have to worry much about "acceptable" terms until that much is assured.
Interestingly, having a country under the control of a dictator has odd results in regards to how a war with him rolls under JWT. If you have a king, or a democratic government with set terms of office, you can (mostly) assume that the losing leader can (a) negotiate a conclusion to a war, and then (b) survive that conclusion even if he loses. With a dictator, because he mostly cannot count on (b), he mostly cannot be pushed into negotiating a losing conclusion to the war: because he usually won't survive, he thinks of war as "do or die" for the country because it is do or die for him personally.
DeleteThis creates insane end-of-war situations for the winning side: war is the use of violent force to "force" the enemy side to submit to other terms (than the ones they thought to achieve). If the "other side" would rather die instead, no "terms" can be imposed to produce peace until they die. That is, if you CAN'T change their minds to accept other, less palatable terms, you CAN'T get a negotiated peace, you are left with eradicating all semblance of their capacity to bring force to bear - in some cases even to the extent of killing all males above a certain age (since you technically don't need a weapon to fight - however poorly effective you might be without one). If Germany had been in the hands of someone other than a dictator, it probably would have surrendered by the end of January 1945, as at that point there was no remotely plausible scenario that meant they win: the Allies had defeated all of their most effective forces, had almost complete control of the skies, etc. Getting a surrender required getting Hitler out of control, i.e. dead.
bmiller,
DeleteI agree that Ed is not one of the extreme attackers or defenders of anything Trump does or says. I also agree that a moderate amount of JWT can be helpful--if Trump had obliterated a city or inflicted massive civilian casualties on Venezuela in order to nab Maduro, that would clearly have been wrong. However, nothing like that happened. I don't think that a single civilian died in the raid, which is either providential or incredibly fortuitous; I favor the former. I do not know of a single nation in the last 100 years which has engaged in war with a commitment to abide by Roman Catholic JWT. That is not the sort of era we live in.
Trump said in the New York Times, " I have my own morality. " We don't a president. We have a king.
ReplyDeleteI understand dislike of Trump, but that comment belies reasons for general Anti-American sentiment in the world.
Delete1. Through-out most of history royals did not have absolute scope in their actions, and certainly nobody thought were entitled to “make their own morality.” The only figures who claim were the world empire builders such as Napoleon, as read through the eyes of Hegel and Nietzsche.
2. The President of the United Statements regardless of who they are has more power than any European monarch has had for centuries at home, and certainly does so abroad—Napoleon after all never got to become “World-Leader”
I am actually more concerned that ICE and CBP have become Trump's personal police force.
DeleteYou can say "Gestapo". They hide their faces and regularly abduct people without due process.
DeleteI am just now having a chance to read the interview. The cause was clearly just and, as I argue below, we don't have good reason to deny that it was justly executed.
ReplyDeleteRealistic hope of success: If the principle goal was simply to remove from office someone who is, in the very informed judgement of Bill Barr, responsible for the deaths of "tens of thousands if not, after this amount of time, hundreds of thousands of American deaths" (see his EWTN interview) due to deliberatly flooding our country with drugs, then this move clearly was successful. He was removed from office.
Objection: "But people with similar principles are in charge."
Response: Let's assume that the vice President shared the exact same principles and was malicious to the exact same degree as Maduro. Granted this dubious assumption: Sharing those principles does not mean that she will make the same calculations after they have seen us fly in and remove the last person who sent drugs into our country. She will be more circumspect about such decisions in the future.
Second, even if the VP shared the same bad principles and malicious character, the one who is ultimately responsible for the evil committed by Maduro is Maduro himself and now he is brought to justice which is a good thing. Again, the principle goal of the mission was very neatly accomplished.
However, the dubious assumption that she is evil to the same degree and will inflict just as much harm on the US should also be examined. We should ask whether or not the premise that the vice president shares exactly the same principles and the same degree of malicious intent toward the US. How would philosophy bloggers and commenters have access to such information. Well WE don't. However, the US government does. To accomplish a mission like this, the Trump adminstration required not just satellite information but informants. So they have informants at high levels of the Venezuelan government. How does any blogger or commenter here know who those informants were? Well no one does but the Trump administration does and they continue to have access to them to know what is going on. Those informants would be in a position to compare the differences between the vice president and President Maduro.
Even IF the US were guessing (and there is not good reason to think that they were and there is good reason to think that they weren't--see below), they could hardly do worse than Maduro. But it is highly unlikely that they were guessing. They have profiles on world leaders that includes information about their families and psychological traits. They knew who would be stepping into office, even if everyone here is ignorant of that information. More to come.
So, as recognized by Feser in the interview, the US wasn't just "removing a tyrant" (I don't know why this was the starting point in responding to the just war question with focus on "success" if this wasn't the principle aim of the mission in the first place). In other words, the act was not principally (and certainly not merely) for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. It was done for the benefit of the people that elected President Trump who he is sworn in office to protect. On these grounds alone, he had reason to good reason to remove Maduro as the removal of Maduro will reduce drug flow into the US as the Vice President will now make different calculations after Maduro removal. The only think that might have prevented the administration from pursuing this mission would be if they thought the removal of Maduro would have resulted in mass chaos in Venezuela wherein thousands or tens of thousands of their people would die. Well that hasn't happened and given the level of information accrued by the US government in decisions like these, they almost certainly KNEW that wouldn't happen. Again they certainly knew more about this than anyone here and there judgement has turned out up to this point to be correct.
ReplyDeleteGiven the mission with Maduro, they probably thought that the country would be run in the same way or perhaps hoped (given some of the initial comments about the US running the country) that they would have more influence and cooperation at the highest levels of the government. The latter didn't materialize but the country is not worse off and given Maduro's disregard for elections and tyrannical habits, the country is better off having the strong man removed (by a stronger man as it were).
"Other problems": The other problems have to do with constitutional law according to Dr. Feser and whether the United States has the authority to do such acts and, if so, whether this requires congressional approval. Once again, in the very informed judgement of Bill Barr, Yes to the first question and "no congressional approval necessary" to the second question. As he said, Presidents throughout history have committed acts that have the potential to cause war without declaring war if there were a threat the pertained to the common good (or "interests") of the US people. More soon.
It seems obvious, given the ease with which the US operated, that Maduro was sacrificed by someone internal, probably the VP. Wouldn’t a limited military action to transition to a more just form of government, as well as recover stollen American property, be preferable to the chaos of a full-scale invasion or the uncertainty of regime change? Any action comes with a great deal of uncertainty, but it seems merely putting immense pressure on the current regime and threatening further military action if they don’t cooperate would be less risky than a declaration of war. I agree with you that the operations against the alleged drug boats are illegal and the second strikes are especially horrendous.
ReplyDeleteSo far, then, the suggestions that the cause was not just or that the execution was not just are invalid. More than this, they are based on hasty judgements that assume that one has more information about the political situation of a particular government than us officials who devote their lives to knowing about such things. Given the recent interview Bill Barr, maintaining that the President lacked the right to act in this way would require assuming that one has more knowledge about constitutional law than Bill Barr or to assume that those who disagree with him are correct and he is wrong. So constitutional law is not a good basis for anyone here to claim that the actions of removing the President of Venezuela were unjustly executed.
ReplyDeleteObjections?
"You might as well say that automobiles are “weapons of mass destruction” because many people die in car crashes." If the venezuelan government were sending people with cars and killed not just tens of thousands of US Citizens with them, then yes we would have a right to remove the President even if the car is not inherently designed to be a weapon. It is designed for convenience as drugs are made for pleasure and making money, but drugs are inherently harmful and are in fact harming US citizens through the deliberate efforts of Maduro. So there is no sophistry here as reflected in Barr's judgement and my own. Barr is not prone to sophistry and nor am I. There is in fact no sophistry or "silliness" in suggesting that the drugs are being used as weapons to harm the US people. That point seems to me so obvious that it is suprising that it has to be stated. Drugs are inherently harmful and they are being sent to the US to harm our people on a massive scale.
Objection 2: "But that is very different from saying that just anyone involved in some way in the drug trade counts as a “terrorist,” or is guilty of “aggression” of a kind comparable to military aggression. That is just sophistry."
Response: It would be if anyone were stating or suggesting what you stated in the first sentence. However, the first sentence is a straw man. The Trump is not calling every person selling a bag of pot here and there a "terrorist". He is targeting large scale efforts that are so significant as to include the President of an entire Country to harm US citizens.
Objection 3:
ReplyDeletePentin: "Oil and natural resources were explicitly a major contributing factor in removing Maduro, and some of the rhetoric also could be read as vengeance. Does this breach the third just war criterion of “right intention” which states that any aim of such an armed response must be not to pursue revenge, power, or plunder?"
Feser: "If the rhetoric about liberating Venezuela is just a pretext and the true motivations are the ones you refer to, then yes, the “right intention” condition of just war doctrine would be violated."
Granting all the premises in these comments, yes "the right intention" criteria would not be met. However, there is just cause as I noted above. Trump made a comment about Maduro doing the Trump dance and he is known for such off cuff remarks. He probably didn't like Maduro doing that dance, but making THAT reasonable claim gives no one warrant to suggest that he decided to put US lives in danger solely or principally on that basis. That sort of claim would be slanderous (and neither Pentin nor Feser made such a slanderous assertion, although Pentin's question suggested that something like this is possible without being specific).
Regarding the oil claims, there is reason to think that this was involved in Trump's calculations. However, there is not good reason to think that this was Trump's principle aim. His principle aim as consistent with numerous statements he has made (including the "war" language) is that he is fighting narco terrorism. That goal is consistent throughout all of the acts and language even if every single statement is not the single mantra: "this was done in the defense of the US people who are being harmed by narco terrorism". One doesn't have to state a principle aim repeatedly as a mantra to be consistent and one can have secondary aims and be consistent with a principle goal.
In other words, someone doesn't automatically become incoherent through having secondary objectives. Those secondary objectives can be examined and even judged unrealistic (e.g. maybe it just isn't feasible in the near term for the US to help Venezuelans and the US by controlling production of oil), but it is the principle objective that is relevant for the just cause (removing someone who has caused untold harm to US Citizens). Accomplishing that principle goal and then asking "What more MIGHT we do?" is not a bad M.O. and it seems to be consistent with Trump's approach.
Objection 4: "Trump also talks about annexing Greenland and this does not seem to be just"
ReplyDeleteResponse: I agree (although I have questions about situations in which such talk could be just if one were serious about doing so and certain conditions were met). However, this is immaterial for the question of whether the actions in Venezuella were warranted on the basis of just war theory.
Objection 5: "Because the president and some of his allies so freely engage in this sort of irresponsible rhetoric, it is very hard to take seriously the suggestion that they are concerned to act justly where war is concerned."
Response: What you are noting are, at worst, faults in speech (and not assuming that all verbal warnings are faults of speech) and inferring from these faults, that if Trump habitually violates justice in speech, he will necessary do so in action and do so in grave ways. Everyone in this blog has what are known in moral theology as "predominant faults" and having those faults does not meant that you are equally prone to commit other faults (especially more serious ones). Someone can overeat, but not be prone to adultery. Someone can be prone to theft, but not to murder. And someone can be prone to unjust verbal aggression, but not prone to unjust physical aggression. The latter doesn't necessarily follow the former. So Trump's acts as President need to be the basis for the judgement that he is prone to act with unjust aggression toward other countries and there is not good basis for suggesting that he is prone to act wrongly. There is good basis to judge that his actions reflect resolve and courage to accomplish things that are difficult and risky but also have great benefit for the United States (e.g. no nuclear Iran; no President of Venezuela sending massive amount of drugs into the US). But there is no reasonable basis to think that a man who refuses a salary and literally risked his life to run the country has no commitment to doing what is good for the Country when his actions should lead us to the opposite conclusion. We can recognize injustice in speech, without assuming from this fault that a person is committed to acting unjustly in grave ways.
"They have done enormous damage to their own credibility on these matters, and have no right to complain when critics question their motives."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the principle effect of Trump's actions in Iran and Venezuela have an overwhelmingly positive effect in deterring wrong doers on a global scale. I don' think Iran or China or Venezuela like US military action in Iran or Venezuela. But that is because they are committed to doing what is contrary to the common good and is no basis for refraining from such actions. Assuming broader objections to our actions in both places from generally reasonable heads of state, those objections should receive due consideration one by one. From this interview and from my other limited knowledge of the response of countries like Great Britain or Spain or France to our actions in Venezuela, I am not sure what those objections might be (if they exist).
Michael,
DeleteThank you for the high quality and quantity of these responses. The actions in Venezuela are part of a larger plan to reduce the influence of China, Islamist states such as Iran, communist states like Cuba, and globalist (and DEI) institutions which hate America. I hope that Maria Machado, and leaders of Central and South American states which support Trump's actions can positively influence Pope Leo.
Regarding Iran, J, K. Rowling said the following, "If you claim to support human rights, yet can't bring yourself to show solidarity with those fighting for their liberty in Iran, you've revealed yourself. You don't give a damn about people being oppressed and brutalised so long as it's being done by the enemies of your enemies." Although she is on the left, Rowling has shown the same courage that she displayed on the trans issue. I applaud that.
Delete"In my opinion, the president’s own rhetoric and actions too often evince what St. Augustine called the libido dominandi or lust for domination."
ReplyDeleteIn the situations we are talking about, his will is to defeat strongmen who are tyrants harming the common good and, in the case of Maduro, who are harming US citizens. I don't know how such actions could lead to the judgement that Trump wants to dominate everyone regardless of their lack of good will. The Romans had the will to place all people under their rule as reflected in their military campaigns. Alexander the Great did this as well. There was good that came with this but the lust to dominate others is not good and we can all agree on that. However, the desire to rule can be at the service of the common good and it seems obvious to me that this is the case with Trump based on the risks he took and sacrifices he made to run for and maintain office. To me it is an understandable human emotion to respond to the scorn, vitriol, questioning of motives, and even violence he and his family have suffered with some frustration. Seeing this doesn't mean that you don't recognize faults; it just means that your judgement is informed by charity for those who lead our country and make personal sacrifices to do so.
The part of the interview I am most excited about on first glance is the question about the Hobbesian view of the world. This is a really insightful question and as I begin to read Dr. Feser's response, starts with an equally insightful response noting the poles of response that are false dichotomies about our options... More soon.
Also, on Greenland, Trump recent comments reflect that: 1. Greenland is needed for US national security, and 2. He would like to purchase it. So he doesn't intend to "act like a gangster" and take it.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the will of the people of Greenland, they don't want to be dominated by China or Russia which is why they have agreed to greater US presence there. In Trump's judgement (far more informed than anyone commenting here), the US needs to have Greenland as part of our country to ensure national security. Greenland might eventually judge that this is needed for their security as well, but only time will tell. The main point here is that it is false to suggest that Trump's considered judgement and intention is to simply forcefully take over Greenland. He is seeking to convince them to let the US *purchase* it.
Well are you named Copas, because you are dealing an egregious amount of cope. Just because you offer to give someone money for something doesn't mean you're not acting like a gangster. If I point a gun at you and say that I would like to purchase your wife, with the implied threat that I will kill you if you refuse, that is still coercion. Theft doesn't cease to be theft just because you choose to offer compensation to the victim. The core of theft is the act of taking something from another without his consent. Trump has made it very clear that he would "prefer" to buy Greenland, but that he WILL use force to get his way if he needs to. Thus it is still gangsterism.
DeleteThe Pope just met with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Machado. She received the Nobel Peace Prize and said that it should have been given to Trump. Those that are of good will (she has risked her life speaking against Maduro) and know the situation in Venezuela see Trump as an ally in doing good for the country and see him as a man who is seeking peace.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on the good results thus far from US action against Maduro, dozens of opposition leaders have been released from prison. Although we should still have a wait and see mindset, there is a something to be learned from this even at this point. We should be careful to avoid confidence in our judgements about disciplines with which we are not familiar (e.g. economic judgements about the effects of tariffs or judgements about the effects of global political actions) and should keep in mind that decisions can be made by an administration with information which we don't have.
Okay this is my last post this morning under this post: I stand corrected. Trump said regarding Greenland in recent days (01/09 I believe): "We can do it the easy way (through payment) or the hard way". I think they will reach a deal and that this is what he intends, but he is signaling that he is willing to take over the country to prevent China and Russia from doing so.
ReplyDeleteHave you rejected my comment for some reason?
ReplyDeleteDid you block my comment? John Ghostley
ReplyDeleteHi John. Was the comment the one you gave in response to the authorization question for just war? Why not repost it here to this post? You had some important things to say. Trump's action does need to be seen in the context of a larger "war" against communism, radical Islam, globalism, and DEI and related poststructuralist ideologies. As you mentioned, it is a war against Judeo-Christian ethics. Trump saying that the U.S. will no longer fund over 60 U.N. globalist organizations is part of that war. The events in Minnesota (exposing fraud and defending ICE) are part of that war. Iranian women burning images of the Ayatollah are part of it. Brits finally realizing how bad the BBC is (the latest is its non-coverage of what is happening in Iran, but other elements include its promotion of trans ideology and suppressing speech of its opponents, its constant lies against Israel, its hatred of traditional Christian views of sexuality, its minimization of honor killings of Pakistani women, etc.) are part of the war. By the way, the UAE now refuses to send students to Britain because they become too radically Muslim!!! That's how bad things have become.
DeleteI thought I put it here and I don't see it. It might be a mistake of my fat fingers. i don't have the post anywhere so I can't repost it.
DeleteFeser’s Sisyphean attempt to speak with moral clarity is admirable. However, as demonstrated, by all the recent comments, futile. God help us.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of outright nonsense that some of you folks believe and form the basic assumptions of your worldview is scary. You’re in a war against DEI, globalization, China, Islam, all this nonsense and who is the main aggressor nation in all this? Just unchecked, nonsensical jingoism rationalized by religion, and acquiesced to out of your petty grievances. I expect basic decency on this side of the internet and not even here is there a majority with decency.
ReplyDelete