New Blackfriars, Volume 103, Issue 1107, Page 640-661, September 2022.

Contemporary just war thinking has mostly been split into two competing camps, namely, Michael Walzer’s approach and its revisionist critics. While Walzerians employ a casuistical method, most revisionists resort to analytical philosophy’s reflective equilibrium. Importantly, besides employing different methods, the two sides also disagree on substantive issues. This article focuses on one such issue, the moral equality of combatants, arguing that while a methodological reconciliation between the two camps is impossible, contemporary debate would benefit from a ‘third-way’ approach. Presenting James (...) Turner Johnson’s historical method as such an approach, the article suggests that while revisionists are correct in considering the symmetry thesis as ethically indefensible, in order to arrive at this judgement, it is not necessary to employ far-fetched thought experiments and the use of historical cases is preferable. The root cause of Walzer’s problematic reasoning vis-à-vis the symmetry thesis, the histori... (shrink)

General Justice is a virtue that leads people to the community order and goods through which they can achieve well-being. This article explains the theory of general justice from the perspective of Aquinas and examines the common good and its role as the subject of general justice in directing and regulating the law. Aquinas counts general justice with the influence of Aristotle and Christian theology as a general virtue that has a particular subject, i.e., the common good. General Justice is (...) the same as virtue which is the same in substance but different in concept. The theory of general justice according to Aquinas is both a kind of legal debt that obliges a person to obey the law and a kind of moral debt that obliges a person to observe the virtue of moral virtue. Aquinas’ theory of general justice finds meaning in societies that meet the criterion of general justice if the ruler formulates a positive law according to divine law and natural law. Thus this theory ultimately depends on the intentions of the ruler and the type of government that lead individuals to a common good in society and well-being. The purpose of this article is to explain the theory of general justice from the perspective of Aquinas and to examine the common good and its role as the subject of general justice in the regulation of law. To achieve goods, we can consider three types of command in the community, which correspond to three types of justice. One commands the components among themselves; another commands the whole to the components and command the components to the whole. Commutative justice is a virtue that regulates the goods of the components among themselves. Distributive justice is a virtue that regulates the goods of the whole into its components. Finally, general justice regulates the goods of the components into the goods of the whole. General Justice is more important than these two virtues of justice because the subject of general justice is the common good. The common good is a kind of order that is necessary for human society so that human beings can achieve their moral, political, and legal goals. The virtues that are private to the individual when they occur in society are directed to the common good through general justice; therefore, general justice is a general virtue. In Aquinas’s works can find different interpretations of general justice being a general virtue. In this article, it is shown that Aquinas’ theory of general justice finds meaning in societies that meet the criterion of general justice if the ruler formulates a positive law according to divine law and natural law. When the rulers and the government are properly instructed to act according to the principles of this society, both the government and the rulers achieve their goal of common good and well-being. When we consider God’s commandments to be the criterion of the common good, then the ruler must be able to interpret the divine law correctly. (shrink)