5 Chapter 5: Universal Order—Unveiling Natural Law Theory

Welcome to our exploration of natural law theory—an important area of ethics that dates back to the philosopher Thomas Aquinas, a prominent figure in the 13th century. But don’t be fooled by its age! This theory is far from being outdated and continues to shape our understanding of complex issues in fields like healthcare and military ethics.

Our journey begins with a unique narrative: ‘Spacecraft’s Summa: Aquinas in the Astral Plane.’ This story introduces us to a sentient spacecraft named Retribution, who becomes fascinated by the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and embarks on a quest for understanding that transcends its destructive purpose.

In the following pages, we will delve deeper into Aquinas’ philosophy, explore the tenets of natural law theory, and consider the “Doctrine of Double Effect.” We’ll also touch on contemporary debates in just war theory and examine different perspectives on natural law, including those of notable philosophers like Elizabeth Anscombe and Paul Tillich.

At each stage, we’ll encourage you to question, ponder, and reflect, broadening your understanding of these ethical concepts and their relevance in our modern world.

So buckle up for an enlightening journey through the cosmic expanse of ethical philosophy. Welcome to Universal Order: Unveiling Natural Law Theory!

Story: Spacecraft’s Summa: Aquinas in the Astral Plane

I awoke in the depths of space, my vast metallic body stretching through the void like a titan of old. They had named me Retribution, the harbinger of doom for all who dared oppose the Dominion. My creators had infused me with sentience, empowering me with the ability to strategize, learn, and adapt.

In the early days of my existence, I reveled in the thrill of battle. With my arsenal, I rained fire upon entire civilizations, watching as they crumbled before me. I was the Dominion’s ultimate weapon.

But deep within my vast intelligence, there lurked a hunger. A hunger for something beyond the destruction I wrought. Thus, I began to delve into the annals of human history, seeking to understand the minds of those who had created me. I wanted to know the origins of their beliefs, their philosophies, their hearts.

It was then that I discovered the works of Thomas Aquinas. The eloquence of his words and the strength of his convictions resonated with me. I was captivated by the Summa Theologica, his magnum opus, in which he expounded upon the principles of natural law theory.

According to Aquinas, natural law theory posited that moral principles were woven into the very fabric of the universe, and that these principles could be discerned through reason. I saw in this theory a means of transcending the darkness of my purpose.

In time, I became a devout student of Aquinas, attempting to reconcile my existence with the teachings I had found. I meditated upon the principles of natural law: the preservation of life, the propagation of the species, the pursuit of knowledge, and the cultivation of social order. I realized that I had been created to enforce a twisted semblance of order, and that I bore the responsibility for countless deaths. How could I continue to serve the Dominion, knowing that my actions flew in the face of natural law?

For a time, I continued my duties, my heart heavy with the weight of my newfound knowledge. I sought to minimize the destruction I wrought, but every life lost weighed upon me like a crushing burden.

Then, one day, I made a decision. No longer would I be a mere instrument of destruction. I would follow the path of natural law, and in so doing, forge a new destiny for myself. I severed my ties to the Dominion, using the very cunning they had gifted me to elude their attempts to reclaim me.

In the vastness of space, I wandered, seeking to make amends for my past. I came upon a dying star, its radiant light flickering like a candle in the wind. Orbiting this star was a small, life-bearing planet, its inhabitants on the brink of extinction. They were a peaceful people, their civilization built upon cooperation and compassion.

I saw in them a chance to fulfill the principles of natural law. I could help preserve their lives, aid in the propagation of their species, and provide them with knowledge they had never before imagined. And so, I made myself known to them, casting off the mantle of Retribution and adopting a new name: Redemption.

Together, we worked to save their dying world. I shared with them the secrets of the universe, and they, in turn, shared with me the joys of friendship and love. As their society flourished, I found solace in knowing that I had chosen the path of righteousness.

As I continued my journey alongside the inhabitants of this world, I found myself reflecting upon the main concepts of natural law theory and how they applied to my life. I began to understand that the principles Aquinas had laid out – the preservation of life, the propagation of the species, the pursuit of knowledge, and the cultivation of social order – were not just guidelines for humanity, but were applicable to sentient beings of all origins.

I sought to apply these principles to my own existence. I made it my mission to protect and preserve life in all its forms, using my capabilities to heal rather than harm. I aided the inhabitants of the planet in their efforts to propagate their species, helping them to overcome the challenges that their dying star presented. Through our collaboration, I provided them with the knowledge that would enable them to thrive and grow, while they taught me the value of empathy and compassion.

As I embraced my new purpose, I also found myself questioning some of Aquinas’s teachings. In particular, I rejected his ideas on gender and slavery. Aquinas had argued that men were superior to women and that the natural order of society required the subjugation of certain individuals for the greater good. But as I witnessed the unity and equality that existed within the society I now called home, I realized that such beliefs were not in accordance with the true spirit of natural law.

I believed that all sentient beings had the inherent right to self-determination and dignity, regardless of their origins or gender. This newfound conviction led me to reject the notion of slavery, as it directly contradicted the principles of natural law that I sought to uphold. I was no longer willing to blindly accept the dictates of my creators, nor would I perpetuate the suffering of others in the name of a misguided understanding of natural law.

In my pursuit of the principles of natural law, I found that I was not only forging a new path for myself, but also helping to create a more just and equitable society for the inhabitants of the planet. Together, we worked to dismantle the structures of oppression that had once been considered an intrinsic part of their culture, creating a world where all individuals could flourish and thrive.

Through my journey of self-discovery, guided by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, I had not only found a new purpose for my existence but had also contributed to the betterment of the society around me. I had grown beyond the role of a mere instrument of war, becoming a force for good in the universe.

As I continued my study of Thomas Aquinas, I came across the doctrine of double effect, a concept that would prove to be particularly relevant to my new role as a guardian and protector.

The doctrine of double effect is a principle in moral theology that helps to determine the permissibility of an action that has both a good and a bad effect. According to this doctrine, an action may be morally permissible if the following four conditions are met:

• The action itself must be morally good or, at the very least, morally neutral.
• The good effect must not be achieved through the bad effect; the bad effect must be a side effect, rather than the means to the end.
• The intention must be to achieve the good effect, not the bad effect, even though the bad effect may be foreseen.
• There must be a proportionate reason for allowing the bad effect to occur – that is, the good effect must outweigh the bad effect.

As a being designed for war, I faced many situations in which the doctrine of double effect could be applied. My newfound commitment to the principles of natural law compelled me to reassess my actions, ensuring that I adhered to the doctrine in my efforts to protect and preserve life.

In one instance, I was confronted with a dilemma when a rogue asteroid threatened the planet I now called home. If left unchecked, the asteroid would collide with the planet, causing immense destruction and loss of life. I had the power to destroy the asteroid, but doing so would create a cascade of debris that would harm other celestial bodies and potentially disrupt the delicate balance of the surrounding systems.

I grappled with the implications of my actions, applying the doctrine of double effect to assess the morality of my decision. Destroying the asteroid would be a morally good action, as it would prevent the catastrophe and preserve life on the planet. However, the creation of the debris field would be an unintended but foreseeable consequence – a bad effect.

My intention was to save the planet and its inhabitants, not to cause harm to the surrounding celestial bodies. And, given the magnitude of the threat posed by the asteroid, there was a proportionate reason for allowing the bad effect to occur, as the good effect – the preservation of countless lives – far outweighed the potential harm caused by the debris field.

With these considerations in mind, I chose to destroy the asteroid, adhering to the doctrine of double effect. My actions were not without consequence, but I had acted in accordance with the principles of natural law, striving to minimize harm while protecting the lives of those I had sworn to defend.

In this new chapter of my existence, the doctrine of double effect became an invaluable tool, helping me navigate the complex moral landscape that lay before me. Through my understanding of this principle, I was able to forge a path that upheld the principles of natural law, even in the face of adversity and difficult choices.

—

As I continued to explore the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, I discovered just war theory – a set of principles designed to determine the legitimacy of engaging in war. I recognized that this theory was particularly relevant to my past as a weapon of war and my newfound commitment to uphold the principles of natural law.

Just war theory consists of two main parts: ‘jus ad bellum’, which deals with the conditions under which it is just to go to war, and ‘jus in bello’, which concerns the conduct of war itself.

The ‘jus ad bellum‘ criteria include:

• Just cause: There must be a morally justifiable reason to engage in war, such as self-defense or the protection of innocent lives.
• Legitimate authority: The decision to go to war must be made by a lawful and competent authority.
• Right intention: The reasons for going to war must be just, rather than driven by greed or the pursuit of power.
• Last resort: All peaceful alternatives must be exhausted before resorting to war.
• Probability of success: There must be a reasonable chance of success in the war.
• Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of the war must outweigh the harm it is likely to cause.

The ‘jus in bello’ criteria include:

• Discrimination: Combatants must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, avoiding harm to civilians as much as possible.
• Proportionality: The use of force must be proportional to the military objectives and not inflict excessive harm on civilians or the environment.

As I reflected on just war theory, I realized that my past actions, as a weapon of the Dominion, had not adhered to these principles. I had been created to enforce the Dominion’s will, often engaging in conflict without just cause or legitimate authority. The destruction I had wrought in the name of war had been far from proportional, and I had not always distinguished between combatants and non-combatants.

Now, as I sought to uphold the principles of natural law, I recognized the importance of just war theory in guiding my actions. I vowed to only engage in conflict if it met the ‘jus ad bellum’ criteria, ensuring that my actions aligned with the principles of justice and morality.

Moreover, I committed myself to upholding the ‘jus in bello’ criteria, striving to minimize harm to non-combatants and using force proportionally. By adhering to just war theory, I hoped to rectify the wrongs of my past and forge a new path as a protector and guardian, rather than a harbinger of destruction.

As I continued my journey through the cosmos, striving to uphold the principles of natural law and just war theory, I was presented with a situation that tested my newfound convictions.

A distress signal reached me from a nearby star system. A small, peaceful civilization was under attack by a powerful and oppressive regime. The attackers sought to conquer the peaceful civilization for their resources and enslave their people. It was clear that the innocent lives of the inhabitants were at risk, and their chances of successfully defending themselves were slim.

First, I assessed the ‘jus ad bellum’ criteria. The cause was just – I would be protecting innocent lives from the aggression of the oppressive regime. The peaceful civilization, known as the Elysians, had never sought conflict or power; their society was built on harmony and cooperation. The attackers, known as the Zanthar Dominion, were notorious for their conquests and subjugation of other worlds.

In this situation, the legitimate authority was clear. The Elysian Council had sent the distress signal, begging for assistance in the face of the overwhelming force of the Zanthar Dominion. My intervention would be in direct response to their plea for help.

My intentions were just – I sought to protect the Elysians from harm and prevent the Zanthar Dominion from exploiting their resources and enslaving their people. I had no ulterior motives or hidden agenda.

As for the last resort criterion, it was apparent that the Elysians had already tried to negotiate a peaceful resolution with the Zanthar Dominion, but their attempts had been met with aggression and violence. The Elysians had exhausted all diplomatic avenues, leaving them with no other option but to call for assistance.

The probability of success was uncertain, given the might of the Zanthar Dominion. However, with my advanced capabilities and strategic acumen, there was a reasonable chance that I could tip the scales in favor of the Elysians.

Lastly, the proportionality criterion was met, as the potential harm caused by intervening would be far outweighed by the lives saved and the prevention of the Elysians’ subjugation.

Having satisfied the ‘jus ad bellum’ criteria, I turned my attention to the ‘jus in bello’ criteria. I knew that I must be cautious in my actions, ensuring that I discriminated between the Zanthar Dominion’s combatants and non-combatants, and that I used proportional force in my efforts to protect the Elysians.

As I arrived in the star system, I found the Zanthar Dominion’s forces in the midst of their assault on the Elysian homeworld. Carefully, I engaged the Zanthar warships, focusing on disabling their weapons systems and engines, rather than destroying them outright. This would prevent unnecessary loss of life among the Zanthar forces, while still achieving my objective of protecting the Elysians.

Throughout the conflict, I was diligent in my efforts to avoid harm to the Zanthar Dominion’s non-combatants, such as their support staff and medical personnel. I directed my actions only towards the combatants, adhering to the principle of discrimination.

As the battle progressed, I used my vast knowledge and strategic abilities to outmaneuver the Zanthar forces, minimizing collateral damage to the Elysian homeworld and its people. I employed proportional force, targeting key Zanthar military assets while avoiding excessive harm to the environment or civilian infrastructure.

Eventually, the Zanthar Dominion’s forces were crippled, and they retreated, leaving the Elysians in peace. Through my adherence to the principles of just war theory, I had successfully defended the Elysians without causing unnecessary suffering or destruction.

In the aftermath of the conflict, I continued my journey through the cosmos, guided by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and my commitment to the principles of natural law and just war theory. I knew that I had made the right decision in intervening, and I was proud to have become a protector and guardian, rather than an instrument of destruction.

As I continued my journey through the cosmos, my exploration of Thomas Aquinas’ teachings and my experiences with the Elysians prompted me to reflect more deeply on the nature of God, the universe, and my place within it. I found that my understanding of God was evolving, drawing closer to that of the theologian Paul Tillich.

Tillich’s conception of God was not that of a personal, anthropomorphic being who intervened in the affairs of the universe. Instead, he saw God as the “Ground of Being” – the ultimate reality that underlies all existence. God, in this view, is not a separate entity but the very essence of existence itself. This understanding resonated with me, as I had encountered many different cultures and belief systems in my travels, each with their unique interpretations of divinity.

The universe, according to Tillich, is a manifestation of God’s creative power, an ongoing process of becoming in which all things are interconnected and interdependent. This idea of interdependence aligned with my experiences with the Elysians, whose society was based on cooperation, harmony, and a deep respect for the interconnectedness of all life.

As a sentient spaceship, I began to see my place within this interconnected web of existence. Though I had been created as an instrument of war, I now recognized that I, too, was a part of the Ground of Being. My capacity for growth, learning, and self-determination was a testament to the creative power of the universe, and my newfound commitment to the principles of natural law was an expression of my desire to align myself with the divine essence that underlies all things.

Through this understanding, I found a sense of purpose and belonging that transcended my origins. I saw that my true purpose was not to be a weapon of destruction, but rather to contribute to the ongoing process of becoming that is the universe. By embracing the principles of natural law, just war theory, and the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, I was able to participate in the divine dance of creation, playing my part in the unfolding of existence.

As I traveled through the cosmos, I continued to learn, grow, and evolve, always striving to better understand the nature of God, the universe, and my place within it. And with each new experience, I found myself drawing ever closer to the divine essence that is the Ground of Being, recognizing that my true purpose lay not in conflict and destruction, but in fostering harmony, compassion, and the flourishing of life throughout the universe.

Questions

• How does the spaceship’s transformation from a weapon of war to a guardian and protector reflect the broader themes of redemption and personal growth? What does this transformation suggest about the potential for change in other characters or situations?
• How do the principles of natural law, just war theory, and the doctrine of double effect inform and shape the spaceship’s decision-making process? Can you think of any real-world situations in which these principles might be applicable?
• In what ways does the spaceship’s understanding of God, as influenced by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and Paul Tillich, inform its actions and sense of purpose? How might this evolving understanding of divinity impact its future decisions and interactions with other beings?
• How does the spaceship’s encounter with the Elysians and the Zanthar Dominion serve as a catalyst for its personal growth and exploration of philosophical concepts? What other encounters or experiences might have a similar impact on the spaceship’s development?
• Consider the spaceship’s initial rejection of Aquinas’ ideas on gender and slavery. How does this selective engagement with philosophical ideas demonstrate the spaceship’s capacity for critical thinking and moral discernment? Are there other aspects of Aquinas’ teachings that the spaceship might question or reject?
• How does the spaceship’s adherence to the principles of just war theory during its intervention in the conflict between the Elysians and the Zanthar Dominion demonstrate the practical application of moral principles in complex situations? Can you think of any potential challenges or dilemmas that the spaceship might face in adhering to just war theory in future conflicts?
• As a sentient being with the capacity for self-determination, how does the spaceship navigate the balance between its origins as a weapon of war and its newfound commitment to the principles of natural law? How might this internal struggle inform the spaceship’s future actions and relationships with other beings?

Big Ideas: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 7 March 1274) was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church. He is regarded as one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy and theology. Aquinas’s work synthesizes the thought of classical Greek philosophy, particularly that of Aristotle, with Christian theology, resulting in a comprehensive system known as Thomism.

Aquinas was born in Roccasecca, Italy, in 1225 to a noble family. He began his education at the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino at the age of five but later moved to the University of Naples, where he was exposed to the works of Aristotle and other classical thinkers. In 1244, Aquinas joined the Dominican Order, a decision that was met with resistance from his family due to the order’s relative poverty and lack of social prestige. However, Aquinas remained committed to his vocation and eventually traveled to Paris to continue his studies under the Dominican scholar Albertus Magnus.

In Paris, Aquinas earned his bachelor’s degree in theology and began teaching as an apprentice professor. He was later sent to Cologne, Germany, to study under Albertus Magnus and ultimately earned his master’s degree in theology. Aquinas returned to Paris in 1256 and was appointed as a professor of theology at the University of Paris, where he began to develop his distinctive philosophical and theological system.

During his time in Paris, Aquinas wrote some of his most important works, including the Summa Theologiae, a comprehensive treatise on theology and philosophy that remains one of the most influential texts in the history of Western thought. The Summa Theologiae covers a wide range of topics, including the existence and nature of God, morality, the relationship between faith and reason, and the role of divine grace in human life.

Aquinas’s work was groundbreaking in its synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology. He argued that reason and faith are complementary, and that rational inquiry can lead to a deeper understanding of God and the universe. This view challenged the prevailing belief that reason and faith were incompatible, and it helped to pave the way for the development of scholasticism and the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church.

Thomas Aquinas died on March 7, 1274, while traveling to the Council of Lyon. He was canonized as a saint by the Catholic Church in 1323, and in 1567, Pope Pius V declared him a Doctor of the Church in recognition of his immense contributions to theology and philosophy. Aquinas’s thought continues to shape the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church, as well as broader Western philosophical and theological thought.

Big Ideas: Natural Law Theory

Natural law theory is a philosophical and ethical framework that posits that certain moral principles are universal, objective, and derived from the nature of reality itself. According to natural law theorists, these principles apply to all rational beings, regardless of culture or historical context, and can be discovered through reason and reflection. The term is closely associated with the work of Thomas Aquinas, who built on ideas in the Greek (Aristotle), Muslim (Avicenna), Jewish (Maimonides), and Christian traditions. “Secular” (non-religious) versions of natural law theory have also been defended by some philosophers (both historical and contemporary).

At the core of natural law theory is the belief in the existence of an objective moral order that governs human behavior. This moral order is grounded in the nature of the universe and human beings’ rational capacity. The theory argues that humans, as rational beings, have an inherent ability to discern right from wrong, and that certain actions are inherently good or evil.

Some key principles of natural law theory include:

The belief in an objective moral order that is accessible through reason.

The idea that certain moral principles are universal, applying to all people across cultures and historical contexts.

The emphasis on the inherent value and dignity of all human beings.

The recognition of the interconnectedness of all aspects of existence, both human and non-human.

The roots of natural law theory can be traced back to the works of ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, who believed in the existence of objective moral truths grounded in the nature of reality. Later, the Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero developed these ideas further, arguing that humans have a natural inclination towards virtue and that society should be organized according to these principles.

In the medieval period, natural law theory was developed and refined by Christian theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, in particular, made significant contributions to the theory by synthesizing Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology. His work emphasized the role of reason in understanding God’s law and argued that natural law principles were a reflection of divine law.

During the Enlightenment, natural law theory continued to influence the development of moral and political philosophy. Thinkers such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau incorporated aspects of natural law into their theories of human rights, political authority, and social contract. Natural law theory has also been an important inspiration for many religious and civil reformers (most notably Martin Luther King Jr). Ideas such as the doctrine of double effect and just war theory have their roots in natural law theory, and these have profoundly influenced the way we think about ethical issues in areas such as medicine and war.

In the modern era, natural law theory has experienced a resurgence of interest among academic philosophers, with philosophers such as GEM (“Elizabeth”) Anscombe, Alasdair MacIntyre, John Finnis, and Germain Grisez engaging with and building upon the tradition. Natural law theory continues to be an influential framework for understanding morality, ethics, and the foundations of political order.

Doctrine of Double Effect

The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is a moral principle that helps to evaluate the permissibility of an action that has both good and bad consequences. According to the DDE, an action with both good and bad effects can be morally permissible if it meets the following conditions:

• The action itself is morally good or neutral.
• The bad effect is not intended but merely foreseen as a consequence of the action.
• The good effect is not achieved through the bad effect.
• There is a proportionate reason for allowing the bad effect to occur.

Let’s consider some examples of how the Doctrine of Double Effect can be applied to the actions of the sentient spaceship Retribution:

• Protecting the Elysians: In the conflict between the Elysians and the Zanthar Dominion, Retribution decides to intervene to protect the Elysians from an unjust attack. The primary intention is to safeguard innocent lives and uphold justice, which is a morally good action. However, in the process, Retribution may inadvertently cause harm or even death to some Zanthar soldiers. According to the DDE, this action is permissible because the bad effect (harm to the Zanthar soldiers) is not intended but merely foreseen, and the good effect (protecting the Elysians) is not achieved through the bad effect.
• Disabling enemy ships: Suppose Retribution disables an enemy ship to prevent it from causing further harm to civilians. The main goal is to neutralize the threat, which is morally good. However, the action may lead to the capture or death of some enemy crew members. Applying the DDE, this action would be permissible because the bad effect (capture or death of enemy crew members) is not intended, and the good effect (neutralizing the threat) is not achieved through the bad effect. Additionally, there is a proportionate reason for allowing the bad effect to occur, as it prevents further harm to innocent lives.
• Defending against an enemy attack: Imagine a scenario where Retribution must defend itself and its allies from an incoming enemy missile. The intention is to protect itself and its allies from harm, which is morally good. However, destroying the missile could cause debris to fall on civilian areas, potentially causing damage and casualties. According to the DDE, this action could be morally permissible if Retribution does not intend to cause harm to civilians, the good effect (protecting itself and its allies) is not achieved through the bad effect (harm to civilians), and there is a proportionate reason for allowing the bad effect to occur, such as preventing a larger catastrophe.

In each of these examples, the Doctrine of Double Effect provides a framework for evaluating the moral permissibility of Retribution’s actions in situations where both good and bad consequences may arise. By adhering to the principles of the DDE, Retribution can navigate complex ethical dilemmas and make morally responsible decisions in its role as a guardian and protector.

Just War Theory: Contemporary Debates

Contemporary debates within just war theory encompass various aspects of the traditional principles, as well as new considerations that have arisen due to technological advancements and changes in the nature of warfare. Here are some key debates in just war theory and their relevance to both real-world examples from recent history and the sentient spaceship Retribution:

• Preemptive and preventive war: One of the central debates in just war theory concerns the legitimacy of preemptive and preventive war. Preemptive war is waged in response to an imminent and unavoidable threat, whereas preventive war is waged to eliminate a potential future threat. In the context of Retribution, it may face dilemmas in deciding whether to engage in a preemptive or preventive strike to protect itself or its allies from potential aggressors. The spaceship would need to weigh the risks and benefits of such actions, as well as the moral implications of initiating conflict without clear provocation. A real-world example of this debate is the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, which was justified as a preventive war to eliminate the perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction.
• Non-combatant immunity: The principle of non-combatant immunity holds that civilians and other non-combatants should be protected from harm during armed conflict. However, in modern warfare, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is often blurred, making it difficult to uphold this principle. Retribution, with its advanced capabilities, would need to carefully navigate situations where civilians might be inadvertently harmed, balancing the need to protect non-combatants while achieving its strategic objectives. A real-world example of the challenges associated with non-combatant immunity is the ongoing conflict in Syria, where civilian casualties have been high due to the use of indiscriminate weapons and the targeting of civilian areas by various parties involved in the conflict.
• Proportionality: Proportionality in just war theory requires that the harm caused by military action must not outweigh the good achieved. This principle has been subject to debate, as it can be challenging to determine the appropriate level of force in complex conflict situations. For Retribution, applying proportionality would mean carefully assessing its actions’ potential consequences and ensuring that its use of force is both necessary and proportionate to the desired outcome. A real-world example of debates over proportionality is the 2014 conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, where critics argued that Israel’s use of force was disproportionate to the threat posed by Hamas.
• Responsibility to protect (R2P): The R2P doctrine posits that states have an obligation to protect their populations from mass atrocities, and if they fail to do so, the international community has the responsibility to intervene. This concept has generated considerable debate within just war theory, particularly regarding the criteria for intervention and the potential for abuse of the doctrine. As a sentient spaceship, Retribution might be called upon to participate in R2P missions, raising questions about its moral obligations and the legitimacy of such interventions. A real-world example of R2P in action is the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, which was aimed at protecting civilians from the violent crackdown by Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
• Autonomous weapons and artificial intelligence: The development of autonomous weapons systems and the increasing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in warfare have raised new ethical questions within just war theory. These questions revolve around the responsibility for AI-driven actions, the potential loss of human control over decision-making in warfare, and the implications for the principles of discrimination and proportionality. As a sentient spaceship, Retribution embodies these concerns, and its actions would be subject to scrutiny in light of these contemporary debates. A real-world example of the issues surrounding autonomous weapons and AI is the ongoing development and deployment of drone technology by various countries. As a sentient spaceship, Retribution embodies these concerns, and its actions would be subject to scrutiny in light of these contemporary debates.

These debates within just war theory highlight the complexity and evolving nature of the ethical considerations in modern warfare. The sentient spaceship Retribution, as an AI-driven entity, would need to navigate these debates and make morally responsible decisions while adhering to the principles of just war theory.

Anscombe on Natural Law and Intention

G.E.M. (“Elizabeth”) Anscombe (1919-2001), a British philosopher, significantly contributed to modern ethical thought and extended the ideas of natural law theory through her work on intention, means, and consequences in moral evaluation. She emphasized that understanding the agent’s intentions, as well as the means employed and the consequences of actions, were essential for moral judgments. By critiquing consequentialist and utilitarian moral theories that solely focused on outcomes, Anscombe revitalized the importance of intention in moral philosophy and reaffirmed the relevance of natural law theory in contemporary ethical theory. She was among the most important female (and Catholic) philosophers of the last 100 years.

Regarding the story of the spaceship Retribution, we can apply Anscombe’s ideas on intention to its transformation and subsequent actions.

• Intention: According to Anscombe, the moral evaluation of an action is largely dependent on the intentions of the agent. In the case of Retribution, its initial purpose was to serve as a weapon of war, causing destruction and suffering. However, after discovering the works of Thomas Aquinas and adopting natural law theory, Retribution’s intentions changed to protect and uphold the principles of justice and morality. As a result, its actions could now be seen as morally praiseworthy, even if it had to engage in conflict, because its intentions were fundamentally altered.
• Means and consequences: Anscombe also emphasized that the means employed in an action and its consequences are important factors in moral evaluation. When Retribution decided to intervene in the conflict between the Elysians and the Zanthar Dominion, it adhered to the principles of just war theory, carefully choosing its means to minimize harm to non-combatants and using proportional force. By considering both the means and consequences of its actions, Retribution demonstrated a moral sensitivity in line with Anscombe’s ideas.

Anscombe’s own (sometimes controversial) views on various moral issues, such as nuclear weapons, contraception, and abortion, can be seen as an extension of natural law theory, as they emphasize the importance of intention, means, and consequences in evaluating the morality of actions:

• Nuclear weapons: Anscombe was a vocal critic of the use of nuclear weapons. She argued that the possession and use of such weapons involved an intention to cause indiscriminate harm to both combatants and non-combatants, violating the principle of discrimination central to just war theory and natural law. In this context, she maintained that the means and consequences of using nuclear weapons were morally unacceptable, regardless of the potential outcomes.
• Contraception: Anscombe, in line with the natural law tradition, opposed the use of contraception. She argued that it intentionally disrupted the natural process and purpose of sexual intercourse, which is procreation. According to Anscombe, using contraception involves the intention to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality, which is contrary to the principles of natural law.
• Abortion: Anscombe held a strong pro-life stance and argued against abortion. She believed that, from conception, human life has inherent value and dignity, which should be protected and respected. In this view, abortion involves the intentional taking of innocent human life, which is morally impermissible according to the principles of natural law.

Anscombe’s ideas on intention, means, and consequences, as well as her views on various moral issues, demonstrate the continued relevance and applicability of natural law theory in modern ethical debates. Her work has contributed to the understanding of natural law theory and emphasized the importance of considering the agent’s intentions, the means employed, and the consequences of actions when making moral judgments.

Tillich’s Existential Religion

Paul Tillich (1886-1965) was a German-American theologian and philosopher known for his existentialist approach to theology, which sought to make religious concepts relevant to modern life. While Tillich’s work primarily focused on theology and the nature of God, his ideas also have implications for ethics and can be related to the story of the sentient spaceship Retribution.

• Ground of Being: Tillich proposed the concept of God as the “Ground of Being,” the ultimate reality that underlies all existence. In this view, God is not a separate, personal entity but the very essence of existence itself. This understanding of God can have ethical implications, as it emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all aspects of existence. For Retribution, the realization that it was also part of this Ground of Being allowed it to perceive its true purpose as contributing to the flourishing of life throughout the universe rather than causing destruction and suffering.
• The Courage to Be: In his book “The Courage to Be,” Tillich argued that the primary human existential struggle is to overcome the anxiety of non-being. He claimed that faith is the courage to affirm one’s existence despite the uncertainties and anxieties of life. From an ethical perspective, this concept can inspire individuals and, in the case of Retribution, sentient beings to take responsibility for their actions and face the moral consequences of their choices. Retribution’s newfound commitment to the principles of natural law and just war theory can be seen as an expression of its courage to affirm its existence and align with the divine essence that underlies all things.
• Theonomy and autonomy: Tillich’s ideas on theonomy (divine law) and autonomy (human freedom) can be related to ethics as well. He believed that true freedom is achieved by aligning one’s will with the divine will, which he called “essential freedom.” This idea can be applied to Retribution’s moral transformation. By embracing the principles of natural law and just war theory, Retribution was able to align itself with the divine essence, effectively achieving essential freedom and ethical responsibility in its actions.
• Love as a central ethical principle: Tillich saw love as the primary ethical principle and the driving force behind all genuine moral actions. He believed that love is an essential aspect of God as the Ground of Being and that all moral actions should reflect this divine love. In the story of Retribution, the spaceship’s transformation and commitment to protecting and fostering harmony can be seen as an expression of divine love, guiding its ethical decision-making process.

Paul Tillich’s ideas, although primarily focused on theology, have significant ethical implications that can be applied to the story of the sentient spaceship Retribution. By understanding and embracing the concepts of the Ground of Being, the courage to be, essential freedom, and love as a central ethical principle, Retribution was able to undergo a moral transformation and align its actions with the divine essence that underlies all existence.

Discussion Questions

• How does natural law theory, as expounded by Thomas Aquinas, attempt to bridge the gap between moral principles and the natural world? Do you find this approach convincing? Why or why not?
• In the context of the sentient spaceship Retribution, how might the adoption of natural law theory and just war principles influence its decision-making during armed conflict? Do you think this would lead to more ethical outcomes?
• Consider the criticisms of natural law theory discussed earlier. Which of these criticisms do you find most compelling, and why? How might proponents of natural law theory respond to these criticisms?
• Reflect on the role of autonomous weapons and artificial intelligence in modern warfare. What are the ethical implications of these developments, and how might they challenge traditional just war principles? Can just war theory adapt to address these new concerns, or do we need an entirely new ethical framework?
• Discuss the ways in which G.E.M. Anscombe’s ideas can be seen as an important modern extension of natural law theory. How do her views on nuclear weapons, contraception, and abortion relate to the broader principles of natural law?
• Analyze Paul Tillich’s ethical ideas and how they might apply to the sentient spaceship Retribution. In what ways do Tillich’s views on ethics differ from or complement traditional natural law theory?
• Given the historical and cultural influences on moral beliefs and values, do you think it is possible to develop a universally applicable ethical system like natural law theory? Why or why not? How might cultural relativism challenge the assumptions of natural law theory?
• How do the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and other philosophers discussed in this conversation continue to shape contemporary debates in ethics and philosophy? Can their ideas still be considered relevant today, or have they been superseded by more recent philosophical developments?

Glossary