Philosophical and Ethical Themes: War and Peace

What you'll learn

This revision guide covers the philosophical and ethical issues surrounding war and peace, one of the four themes in WJEC GCSE Religious Studies. You'll explore religious and non-religious attitudes towards conflict, violence, and peacemaking, with specific reference to Christianity and one other religion (typically Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism). This topic requires you to understand key concepts like pacifism and just war theory, evaluate arguments for and against different positions, and apply religious teachings to contemporary conflicts.

Key terms and definitions

Pacifism — The belief that all violence and war are wrong and that disputes should be settled through peaceful means. Absolute pacifists oppose violence in all circumstances.

Just War Theory — A set of criteria developed by Christian thinkers to determine when going to war (jus ad bellum) and conduct during war (jus in bello) can be morally justified.

Holy War — A war fought for religious purposes, believed to be commanded or authorised by God, with spiritual rewards promised to participants.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) — Nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons capable of killing large numbers of people and causing extensive damage.

Reconciliation — The restoration of friendly relations after conflict; bringing opposing sides together to resolve differences peacefully.

Terrorism — The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in pursuit of political aims.

Conscientious objector — A person who refuses to serve in the armed forces on moral or religious grounds.

Nuclear deterrence — The strategy of preventing nuclear war by threatening nuclear retaliation, making the cost of attack too high (Mutually Assured Destruction/MAD).

Core concepts

Reasons for war

Wars occur for various reasons, and religious believers must evaluate whether these reasons can ever justify armed conflict:

Self-defence

• Nations have the right to protect their citizens from attack
• The UN Charter permits military action in self-defence (Article 51)
• Most religious traditions accept defence of innocent lives as morally justifiable
• Christianity: "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15:13)

Protection of others

• Humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide or severe human rights abuses
• NATO intervention in Kosovo (1999) aimed to prevent ethnic cleansing
• The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine suggests international duty to intervene
• Religious teaching emphasises protecting the vulnerable and oppressed

Greed and power

• Historical conflicts over resources (oil, land, water)
• Imperial expansion and colonialism
• Religious believers generally condemn wars fought for selfish gain
• Violates principles of justice and compassion found in all major faiths

Retaliation and revenge

• Responding to perceived injustices or past grievances
• Cycle of violence (e.g., Israeli-Palestinian conflict)
• Most religions discourage revenge: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" (Romans 12:17)
• Islam teaches that forgiveness is superior to retaliation

Just War Theory

Developed by Augustine and refined by Thomas Aquinas, this Christian framework attempts to limit warfare:

Jus ad bellum (right to go to war):

• Just cause — War must be to right a wrong (self-defence, protecting innocents)
• Legitimate authority — Must be declared by proper governmental authority, not individuals
• Right intention — Fought to achieve good and avoid evil, not for revenge or conquest
• Probability of success — Reasonable chance of achieving objectives; avoid futile conflicts
• Last resort — All peaceful alternatives exhausted (negotiation, sanctions, diplomacy)
• Proportionality — Expected good must outweigh anticipated harm and suffering

Jus in bello (right conduct in war):

• Discrimination/distinction — Distinguish between combatants and civilians; no deliberate targeting of non-combatants
• Proportionality — Force used must be proportionate to military objectives; avoid excessive force
• Treatment of prisoners — POWs must be treated humanely (Geneva Conventions)

Modern application:

• Debate over whether wars in Iraq (2003) or Afghanistan (2001) met just war criteria
• Challenges with proportionality when using advanced military technology
• Difficulty distinguishing combatants in asymmetric warfare/terrorism

Pacifism and non-violent protest

Religious pacifism:

Christianity:

• Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) are traditionally pacifist
• Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9)
• "Turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) — reject retaliation
• Early Christians refused military service; position changed after Constantine
• Many Christians aren't absolute pacifists but oppose particular wars

Buddhism:

• First Precept: abstain from harming living beings
• Ahimsa (non-violence) central to Buddhist ethics
• Middle Way approach suggests avoiding extremes of violence
• Some Buddhists accept defence in limited circumstances (e.g., protecting innocent lives)

Non-violent resistance:

• Mahatma Gandhi's satyagraha (truth-force) campaign for Indian independence
• Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights movement in the USA
• These movements demonstrate effectiveness of peaceful protest
• Religious motivation: belief in human dignity and power of moral example

Arguments for pacifism:

• Sanctity of life — human life is sacred and shouldn't be destroyed
• Cycle of violence — war breeds more conflict and hatred
• Efficacy — non-violent methods can be more successful long-term
• Example of religious founders (Jesus, Buddha) who taught peace

Arguments against pacifism:

• Fails to protect innocent victims of aggression
• Assumes aggressors will respond to peaceful methods
• May allow evil to triumph through inaction
• Lesser of two evils — violence may prevent greater suffering

Holy War

Concept and criteria:

• War believed to be commanded by God
• Participants promised spiritual rewards (martyrdom, paradise)
• Historical Christian Crusades (1095-1291) to reclaim Jerusalem
• Islamic concept of jihad (though lesser jihad/armed struggle has strict conditions)

Islamic perspective on jihad:

• Greater jihad — personal spiritual struggle against sin
• Lesser jihad — armed struggle, permitted only under specific conditions:
  • Defence of Islam and Muslim community
  • Authorised by legitimate authority
  • No forced conversion: "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)
  • Protect non-combatants, especially women, children, elderly
  • Proportionate response
  • Last resort after peaceful methods exhausted
• Misused by extremist groups to justify terrorism (rejected by mainstream Muslims)

Problems with holy war concept:

• Claims of divine authority difficult to verify
• Can be manipulated for political purposes
• Often leads to atrocities (Crusaders' massacre at Jerusalem, 1099)
• Contradicts religious teachings on peace and compassion

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Nuclear weapons:

• Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) killed over 200,000 people
• Nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons
• Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT, 1968) attempts to limit spread

Religious responses:

Arguments against WMD:

• Indiscriminate killing violates just war principles (distinction between combatants/civilians)
• Disproportionate harm — effects last generations (radiation, environmental damage)
• Violates sanctity of life on massive scale
• Christian teaching: "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44)
• Islamic teaching: "Do not transgress limits" in warfare (Qur'an 2:190)
• Pope Francis called nuclear deterrence "illusory" (2019)

Arguments for nuclear deterrence:

• Prevents large-scale war (no direct conflict between nuclear powers since 1945)
• Lesser evil — threat of use prevents actual use
• Protects populations from aggression
• Some Christians support if never actually used
• Stewardship responsibility to protect nations

Chemical and biological weapons:

• Banned by international conventions (1972 Biological Weapons Convention, 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention)
• Cause horrific suffering (mustard gas in WWI, sarin gas in Syria)
• Religious traditions unanimously condemn due to indiscriminate effects and cruelty

Peacemaking and reconciliation

Religious duty to pursue peace:

Christianity:

• Jesus called "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6)
• "Seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:14)
• Parable of the Good Samaritan teaches helping former enemies
• Forgiveness central: Lord's Prayer asks to "forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors"

Islam:

• "Peace" (salam) rooted in religion's name and greeting
• "If they incline to peace, make peace with them" (Qur'an 8:61)
• Reconciliation after conflict strongly encouraged
• Emphasis on justice as foundation for lasting peace

Practical peacemaking:

• Interfaith dialogue — Building understanding between religious communities (e.g., St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and Peace, London)
• Mediation — Third-party intervention to help resolve disputes
• Peace organisations — Religious groups working for peace:
  • Pax Christi (Catholic peace movement)
  • Christian Peacemaker Teams
  • Muslim Peace Fellowship
  • International Campaign to Ban Landmines (awarded Nobel Peace Prize, 1997)

Reconciliation processes:

• Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa (post-apartheid)
• Archbishop Desmond Tutu's work based on ubuntu (African philosophy of shared humanity)
• Requires acknowledgement of wrongs, repentance, forgiveness, restitution
• Restorative justice focuses on healing rather than punishment

Terrorism and responses

Nature of terrorism:

• Deliberately targets civilians to create fear
• Seeks political/religious change through violence
• Examples: 9/11 attacks (2001), London bombings (2005), Manchester Arena (2017)
• Distinction between terrorism and legitimate resistance debated

Religious condemnation:

• All major religions condemn terrorism as violating sanctity of life
• Deliberately killing innocents contradicts just war principles
• Islamic scholars issued fatwas against terrorism and suicide bombing
• Distorts religious teachings for political purposes
• Creates backlash against entire religious communities

Responses to terrorism:

• Military action (e.g., Afghanistan 2001) — debated whether effective
• Intelligence and security measures
• Addressing root causes (poverty, injustice, political grievances)
• Counter-radicalisation programmes
• Religious leaders promoting correct interpretation of scriptures

Worked examples

Example 1: AO1 Question (5 marks)

Explain two reasons why some Christians are pacifists.

Model answer: One reason some Christians are pacifists is because of Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, where he said "Blessed are the peacemakers" and told his followers to "turn the other cheek" rather than retaliate when attacked. This suggests that violence is never acceptable and that Christians should respond to aggression with peaceful resistance.

Another reason is belief in the sanctity of life. Christians believe human life is sacred because people are made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27). Therefore, deliberately taking life through warfare violates God's commandment "Do not murder" (Exodus 20:13). Christian pacifists argue that this prohibition applies in all circumstances, including war.

Mark scheme notes:

• Each reason needs development (cause → effect / teaching → application)
• Specific scriptural references strengthen answers
• 3 marks for detailed explanation of one reason, 2 marks for simple explanation
• Must explain "why," not just describe pacifism

Example 2: AO2 Question (15 marks)

"Nuclear weapons can never be justified." Discuss this statement showing that you have considered more than one point of view. (You must refer to religion and belief in your answer.)

Model answer structure:

Arguments supporting the statement (6-7 marks worth): Many religious believers would agree that nuclear weapons can never be justified because they violate fundamental moral principles. Nuclear weapons cause indiscriminate destruction, killing millions of civilians alongside military targets, which contradicts the just war principle of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated this, killing over 200,000 people, many of whom were civilians. Christian teaching to "love your enemies" and the sanctity of life principle suggest that weapons designed for mass killing cannot align with God's will. Furthermore, the long-term effects of radiation cause suffering for generations, violating proportionality. Islamic teaching that warfare must not "transgress limits" would also condemn weapons whose effects cannot be controlled or limited. Pope Francis has called nuclear deterrence an "illusory" basis for peace, suggesting even possessing these weapons without using them is morally wrong.

Arguments against the statement (6-7 marks worth): However, some religious believers argue nuclear weapons can be justified as a deterrent. Since 1945, there has been no direct military conflict between nuclear powers, suggesting the threat of nuclear retaliation (Mutually Assured Destruction) has prevented another world war. Some Christians might argue this represents choosing the lesser evil — threatening to use weapons to prevent their actual use and protect millions from conventional warfare. The principle of proportionality in just war theory could support this if nuclear deterrence prevents greater loss of life. Additionally, national leaders have a duty to protect their citizens, and nuclear weapons may be necessary in a dangerous world. Some would distinguish between possessing nuclear weapons for defensive deterrence and actively planning to use them offensively.

Justified conclusion (2-3 marks): In my view, nuclear weapons cannot be morally justified even as a deterrent. The catastrophic humanitarian consequences and environmental damage they cause are disproportionate to any conceivable military objective. The strategy relies on willingness to commit mass murder, which contradicts the core religious value of sanctity of life. However, I understand the pragmatic argument that deterrence has maintained peace between major powers, creating a difficult ethical dilemma for political and religious leaders.

Mark scheme expectations:

• Two balanced viewpoints with development and examples
• Religious teachings explicitly referenced and applied
• Justified personal conclusion that engages with arguments presented
• Level 4 (10-12 marks) requires detailed discussion; Level 5 (13-15 marks) requires excellent analysis and coherent chain of reasoning

Example 3: AO1 Question (8 marks)

Explain two conditions of just war theory and refer to sacred writings or another source of religious belief in your answer.

Model answer: One condition of just war theory is that war must be a last resort, meaning all peaceful alternatives such as negotiation and diplomacy have been tried and failed. This reflects the Christian belief that peace is preferable to conflict, as Jesus taught "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9). Only when peaceful methods have been exhausted can the serious step of warfare be morally considered, ensuring that unnecessary bloodshed is avoided.

Another condition is proportionality, which means the good expected from going to war must outweigh the anticipated harm and suffering. The force used must match the threat faced — excessive force that causes disproportionate casualties cannot be justified. This reflects the Christian principle of love and compassion. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), Jesus taught care for others, which implies limits on violence even in warfare. The deaths and destruction caused by war must not exceed the injustice being addressed.

Mark scheme notes:

• 4 marks per condition (max 8 marks)
• Must include relevant religious source (scripture, teaching, tradition)
• Need to explain the condition and its religious basis
• Examples strengthen but aren't required for full marks

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

• Confusing jihad with terrorism — Remember that jihad primarily means personal spiritual struggle; armed jihad has strict ethical conditions and most Muslims condemn terrorism as violating Islamic principles. Always present accurate, nuanced understanding of religious concepts.

• Treating all Christians/Muslims/Jews as having identical views — Religious traditions contain diverse perspectives. Use qualifiers like "many Christians believe" or "some Muslims argue" rather than absolute statements. Acknowledge denominations (Quakers vs Catholics) have different positions.

• Describing religious teachings without applying them — Don't just quote scripture; explain how it relates to the question. For example, don't just state "Love your neighbour" — explain why this teaching leads Christians to support/oppose particular responses to war.

• One-sided AO2 answers — Even if you strongly agree/disagree with a statement, you must present and develop both viewpoints. Examiners assess your ability to analyse different perspectives, not whether they agree with your conclusion.

• Vague examples — Avoid "many wars" or "some countries." Use specific examples: "the 2003 Iraq War," "Hiroshima bombing," "UN peacekeeping in Bosnia." Precision demonstrates knowledge and strengthens arguments.

• Ignoring command words — "Explain" requires cause-effect reasoning; "Discuss" requires multiple viewpoints; "Evaluate" requires judgement with justification. Tailor your response to what the question asks.

Exam technique for Philosophical and Ethical Themes: War and Peace

• AO1 questions (knowledge and understanding) — Use the PEE structure: Point (state the belief/teaching), Evidence (scriptural quote, religious authority, specific example), Explanation (why this matters, how it connects). For 5-mark questions, develop two distinct points. For 8-mark questions, include sacred texts or religious sources explicitly.

• AO2 questions (analysis and evaluation) — Follow a clear structure: Introduction acknowledging the debate, 2-3 developed arguments supporting the statement, 2-3 developed arguments opposing it, justified personal conclusion. Allocate roughly equal space to both viewpoints. Top-level answers show chains of reasoning (if X, then Y, therefore Z) rather than listing isolated points.

• Religious references are essential — Every answer should include specific religious teachings, scriptures, or authorities. Generic moral philosophy isn't sufficient for full marks. Know key verses: Matthew 5:9, 5:39, 5:44; John 15:13; Romans 12:17-21; Qur'an 2:190, 2:256, 5:32, 8:61; Exodus 20:13.

• Time management — In a 2-hour exam covering four themes, spend approximately 7 minutes on 5-mark questions, 10 minutes on 8-mark questions, and 18 minutes on 15-mark questions. Leave 2-3 minutes per question to plan AO2 answers and ensure balanced structure.

Quick revision summary

War and peace involves evaluating when, if ever, violence can be justified from religious perspectives. Just war theory provides criteria for legitimate warfare (just cause, legitimate authority, last resort, proportionality), while pacifists argue all violence contradicts religious teachings on sanctity of life. Holy war claims divine authorization but raises theological problems. Nuclear weapons and WMD present unique challenges due to indiscriminate effects. Religious traditions emphasize peacemaking through reconciliation, forgiveness, and interfaith dialogue. Terrorism is universally condemned as targeting innocents. Know specific Christian and Islamic teachings with scriptural support for effective exam answers.