Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

60 BRIAN V. JOHNSTONE
objective requirements, that is the promotion of peace, and,
where necessary, the protection of those to whom one has commitments
in love and responsibilities in justice. Where one cannot
protect these persons by any other means except armed
force, armed force may be justifiable. In assessing the proportionality
of the war itself, proportionality must be assessed not
only in regard to the immediate needs of a particular nation, but
also with respect to the wider interest in the peace of the whole
human family. Charity would require the limitation of the use of
violence to what is necessary to defend those persons under
threat or attack. Vague metaphysical notions of condign punishment
are not admissible, since they are not reasonably calculable.
The range of action must be limited to what is needed to
repel this particular aggression, and to prevent these perpetrators
from further aggression. War may not be engaged in for
quasi religious ends, such as making the world a better place, or
making the world safe for democracy, or conquering “evil”, since
such notions are simply indefinable and can never be used in
assessing proportionality.
Concerning the assessment of proportionality in relation to
particular operations, a first requirement is to learn from experience.
When it is evident that certain forms of attack simply
cannot adequately be controlled, then they may not be used. The
criteria must be what is strictly necessary to defend those persons
who have claims in charity and justice to be protected.
The tradition of reason, as explained here, means that which
has been developed in the Catholic tradition. Would this mean
that it applies only within that tradition? Those who hold to the
Catholic tradition do not claim that they necessarily have a better
grasp of the requirements of reason than do others. But they
do believe that, in the light of their understanding of reason,
they can responsibly offer to others what they themselves have
discovered to be a way of leading a good life, even in the circumstances
of what seems to be the intractable violence of our
world. Accordingly, they believe they have grounds to argue their
case in public, and to critique policies and tactics, which while
claiming to be “reasonable, ” can sometimes by shown not to be
so, using by the very criteria of reason that their proponents
themselves presuppose. The major focus of critique will be the
inner coherence of such proposals. It may be added here, that