What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Should there be missile strikes on Syria?

    It has taken me a little while to work out whether or not missile strikes against Syria are justified by the UK at the moment.

    It seems to me that there are quite a lot of people who don’t seem to need to take their time and know instinctively that military action either should or should not take place. Certainly those who are against missile strikes seem to be dusting down their “not in my name” T-shirts and getting ready to oppose military action.

    If you are a pacifist then the answer is clear. If you are a pacifist then you are going to be opposed to military action come what may.

    As it happens, I am not a pacifist. I think that there are situations when military action is justified but I think you’ve got to cross quite a high moral bar before you can justify the use of force.

    There’s three tests for me – classic just war theory, intervention for humanitarian purposes and enforcing international law.

    Let’s take them one by one.

    Just War Theory

    There’s plenty to read about Just War Theory. Some people don’t buy it at all but I think the tests are useful.

    The idea is that certain conditions must be met before a war might be considered legitimate. Such tests are laid out, for example, in the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

    They are:

    1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
    2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
    3. there must be serious prospects of success;
    4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).

    In this case, I think that the first test is partly but not wholly met.

    The use of chemical weapons is lasting and grave. However, the public doesn’t have certainty about how they were deployed. If governments have such  proof they have not made it public yet. There may be circumstances in which it is wise for governments to keep secret how they know things but it is the case that in modern times, simply saying “we know best and we are not telling you how we know” is a difficult place for governments to find themselves with their people.

    The second test is difficult for me to assess. Are there any alternatives to military action. If military action is just about the use of chemical weapons and not about taking sides in the war then I don’t know whether there are any alternatives. There certainly don’t seem to be many.

    The third test is more of a struggle I think. Is there really a serious chance of success? This doesn’t mean a chance that, for example, Western missiles might hit particular targets. The test is whether by hitting such targets, the use of chemical weapons would cease. Given that there were similar strikes by the US some time ago and we now appear to have further use of chemical weapons, I think we have to say that there are serious doubts about whether there is  realistic prospect of success.

    The fourth test is perhaps the most grave. It seems to me that the use of force might well produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. We don’t know and we cannot know whether this test can be met in this case.

    So, I’d say that Just War Theory offers little support for military intervention at the moment.

    Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes

    The UK has intervened in some countries in recent years for humanitarian purposes. In some cases it has gone well and in others perhaps less well. The Bosnian and Sierra Leone campaigns were said by many to be classic uses of force for good.

    The prospect of missile strikes in Syria does not seem to me to be entirely about intervention for humanitarian purposes. Certainly it would be good to stop chemical weapons being used but far from certain that this can be achieved. I see no plans to be involved in building the peace after the bombing. I see no plans to intervene for anyone’s good.

    Humanitarian concerns do not seem to be met by this proposed military intervention.

    Enforcing International Law

    The use of chemical weapons is illegal. Whoever used them committed a crime and should be brought to justice in the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Military intervention that was designed to bring perpetrators to justice could, in my view, be justified.

    However, I don’t think that what is currently apparently being considered comes anywhere near this.

    My conclusion

    So, my conclusion after looking at this proposed action through these moral lenses is that military action cannot be justified at this time.

    That is not to say that I think this is easy. I may be wrong. I think that it behoves everyone to support military personnel involved in any action that is taken. And I have much sympathy with the politicians who have decisions to make.

    I once wanted to be one of them.

    They have a hard job to do with partial information and some information that cannot be shared.

    So far as I can see this military action cannot be justified. However, I’m very aware that this is a view based on my limited knowledge of events.

    My thoughts are with all who have decisions to make which affect the lives of others.

    , ,

9 responses to “RSA Animations”

  1. annie t Avatar
    annie t

    Fascinating stuff; like watching a (very) animated Paulo Freire! Loved the insight ‘collaboration is the stuff of growth’. Interesting implications for a congregational paradigm for theological education. Thanks Kelvin.

    Reply
  2. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Yes – I was also reminded of my synod question about TISEC, which I still don’t think I’ve received an adequate answer to, which was something like this: “Is learning through TISEC driven by normalised marking or learning outcomes?”

    Reply
  3. Kimberly Avatar
    Kimberly

    presumably neither, but by the grace of God?

    (‘normal’, ‘outcomes’, and ‘TISEC’ all in the same sentence could lead to much fun. But I suspect I’d head down the via negativa again.)

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      The answer that I got was “both” though I’ve never believed that can be possible. I do believe that TISEC at one time or another took on the trappings of each of those learning models, but that is not the same thing at all.

      Reply
  4. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Can I gently suggest that the Tisec you love to hate has over the years changes significantly?

    Reply
  5. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    TISEC has always claimed to be changing – in that way it always is the same.

    I do accept that things have changed but have no way of knowing whether they have changed for the better. I still know people whom it appears to suit and I still know people who get distressed by what is done to them within it. In that respect at least, again, it remains the same.

    I’ve said before now that one of the reasons that TISEC is something that still presents unresolved issues for some of us who went through it is that there was never any public accountability within the church over what was done to us. No-one was ever held responsible and even though TISEC itself went through several reviews, the reasons for those reviews being carried out were never transparent.

    I’d still be happy to receive a coherent answer to the question. Incidentally, when I was in TISEC, the answer was clear – it was driven by learning goals and outcomes.

    I was at the General Synod where we voted for TISEC to cease to be a teaching institution. That was a pretty strong decision and one which was enthusiastically celebrated by some. (I went to the celebratory lunch afterwards and some folk came up from England for it). That does make it hard to understand what has happened subsequently.

    Reply
  6. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    More than it would be appropriate for me as a staff member to answer to, and more than I am the most appropriate person to answer to, educational theory not being my speciality. However, FWIW I can answer to the fact that normalised marking is firmly in place, and that our external examiner is more than happy with the standards our students achieve. Beyond doubt all those who get a diploma from us have achieved the educational equivalent of the first two years of University education.

    Reply
  7. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Well, this isn’t comparing like with like as the current external examiner acts for an institution (albeit one which may have a financial interest) that had nothing to do with TISEC when I was in it, however, I can say that the external reports on TISEC were always astonishingly good.

    All the more astonishing for those of us who were in TISEC at the time I was, actually.

    It would be interesting to compare the quantifiable academic achievements of Scottish ordinands over time. I’ve a notion that two years of university study falls short of the standards for ordinands which the General Synod was hoping for when it last voted on a report about TISEC.

    Reply
  8. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    The current external examiner is, it is true, employed; however he is not a member of the qualifying institution. He is a member of another independent academic institution, thereby bringing to his examination direct knowledge of at least three bodies (theirs, ours and his as it were). The work of our students is scrutinised by two markers at Tisec, and each piece of work scrutinised by the external examiner who checks it is achieving the same standards as YSJ. The over-all standard of YSJ is likewise scrutinised to ensure it too is achieving work of the same standard for the same level as other Universities.

    The question of whether standards nationally have risen or fallen is a different question, and harder to ascertain. We may indeed have our own different opinions. But I think it beyond doubt that the general level of the work of Tisec students is the same as the level (qualification for qualification) as the standard of students nation wide. So very much work goes into ensuring this.

    Personally, I would not be prepared to grant a degree in anything involving Biblical studies without knowledge of the Biblical languages. However it is a fact that the Universities now often do this – and indeed even forty years ago it was possible to obtain a M. Theol at St Andrews with only Greek. However regrettable this is, insisting on a full degree will not restore this.

    For those who study for a qualification with Tisec while working, as indeed for those who study with other bodies while working, to achieve two years of degree level study while in a full time job is a considerable achievement. To reach degree standard would take another 18 months I suppose – and that is a decision for the church to take.

    While I would be very sympathetic to the idea of encouraging more students to undertake a full time degree at a University, the funding of such things is a decision for the denomination, not Tisec. To ensure this in the present economic climate would be expensive, and for students who already have personal commitments, not always possible. This is why most English dioceses offer part-time training. The brief for Tisec is to offer a course that those NOT taking a full-time a course can follow, together with specifically vocational study which the Universities do not provide.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Bible Study – Turning Over a New Fig Leaf

    We had a good bible study last night at the LGBT group here at St Mary’s. I thought I’d post the basic questions here and see whether people wanted to have a go at answering them here too. First of all we read most of Genesis Chapter 2. (You can find the text at the…

  • Sermon – the Maker, Troublemaker, Peacemaker

    Here’s what I said on Sunday in the pulpit about that tricky gospel reading. Not peace, but a division Sometimes one reads the Gospel in church and everyone nods knowingly. You can tell that people think that what is being said is wise and good. When we tell the story of the Good Samaritan, perhaps.…

  • Our newest priest

    Great to be with Kate Reynolds as she was priested today in Old St Paul’s. Congratulations to her and to the congregation.

  • Friday Reading List

    Here are the most interesting things I’ve read this week. Kids can’t use computers – The plaintive cry of someone who can. due for revision – Kimberly Bohan riff off the ten commandments and asks what we should really be teaching people Rowan Williams wonders whether it could all have been different.