Sir Thomas More and Just War

This is a brief sketch outlined for a now aborted collection of writings (no one was interested before Sept 11th 2001 but I have since reviewed others' attempts at compiling the classics in just war theory). This was written in 1998 before I gave up hope of finding a publisher for the collection, which still sits on my shelves, and moved onto other projects. (Sept 2004)

In his Utopia, More offers a vision of how the just war should be fought. The vision is not far from what the traditional just war conventions are, but some exceptions are worth pointing out.

The first consideration is that More’s Utopians are always prepared for war: prudence leads them to train each person and develop some for special kinds of warfare such as the setting of traps or the attacking of an enemy’s generals whilst in battle. Although they are forever prepared to wage war, the Utopians despise it and will attempt to avoid it all costs. For this purpose, they are willing to buy off an enemy or to use their wealth to divide it against its rulers; if war becomes necessary, mercenaries are to be employed before they will commit their own to battle.

From this a condition of jus ad bellum can be discerned. War is a last resort. More also offers the conditions under which a just war should be fought, namely defence of their land, the protection of allies’ lands, and wars to liberate oppressed peoples; other reasons to fight on behalf of willing friends include unfair legal practices or extortion against businesses. The just war gives a right to punish aggressors.

Punishment is to be severe but not indiscriminate. For More, guilt always lies with individual perpetuators who are to be held guilty for the crimes they commit against Utopia, its allies, or civilians who come in their way. An interesting example is given by the siege. Whereas for Michael Walzer (Just and Unjust Wars, 1977) civilians who remain in a besieged city are effectively militarised and hence become legitimate targets of war, for Sir Thomas More the city is to be taken with minimum harm to civilians, whilst punishment is meted out only on those who used the city as a hostage for their war. Non-combatant immunity is crucial for More, but he offers an interesting angle on their immunity—they are not to be targeted militarily, but they should be offered bribes or rewards for turning aggressors over.

More argues that combatants should include women, an argument that is presently coming to fruition. For More, allowing even families to fight would strengthen the fighting spirit and solidarity of the Utopian army.[1]

Overall More offers a vision of wars being avoided at all costs; a vision that permits the use of economic sanctions and bribes as well as the purchasing of mercenaries to fight wars. More’s just war theory captures the humanist vision that places emphasis on the moral worth of the individual and his or her life. What is of philosophical interest is its utopian overtones—the idealist community possesses unlimited resources by which to bribe enemies, a price, the early English kings knew of with the Danegeld, which would surely rise and keep on rising. Any attack on the Utopians property remains negligible, according to More, since they are have a communally based property system; whilst the critique of More’s communalism is an economic issue,[2] a problem remains as to how human is this vision. Whilst the Utopians are idealistic, their enemies are mercenary—to be bought off if possible; but what happens if the enemy is a Napoleonic mass, fired by ideology and righteousness for their cause?

Although More offers a useful standard for the just war theorist, his vision remains utopian.

[1] See the recent paper by Jeffrey P. Whitman, “Women, Sex, and the Military”, in which he argues that entrusting implementation of the just codes of conduct in war cannot be gender specific: “There is nothing peculiarly masculine about being a soldier, and those who think otherwise do not truly understand the essence of solderiering.” (p.14). Source: JSCOPE web: http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/WHITMAN98.HTM , accessed 19/02/1998.

[2] For a critique of communal economics, see Ludwig von Mises’s Socialism, Liberty Classics: Indianapolis, 1981.