Ok, I can see a conundrum I’ve never fully faced – and I thank Sebastian Schepis‘s consistent position as a backdrop for me to even notice it:
I’m by all measures generally a pacifist. I say things like, “I don’t like America’s foreign affairs so I focus on domestic ones instead” and this is what I’ve been doing most of my life.
I do pay attention to what crap America is doing overseas by following HRW once a year at our Report Card and I tsk tsk but I also fully expect it: a country with BOMBS in the theme song is going to do what it does despite whatever I say.
I say “I don’t believe in Just War Theory”.
I’ve been saying that forever. And yet; because I EXPECT war to come from the USA somehow, I don’t answer whether I think it is just to enter war, which is one part of Just War Theory.
So I am skipping that part of the question.
What I do instead is the SECOND part of Just War Theory, which is: Since we’re at war ANYWAY, let’s at least establish rules of war.
called: Jus in bello
“Once war has begun, just war theory (jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:”
and I will argue those points, which are a part of Just War Theory.
But what about arms trade? I’ve had a “it’s wrong but what can we do?” attitude forever and yet, am I then justifying it?
I don’t know. I hadn’t gotten there yet.