Where do we draw the line between war and morality?

The current international situation, specifically the threat of terrorism, was the foundation for last night's Russell Lectureship series' guest speaker, Rev. J. Bryan Hehir.

"How do you carry out moral analysis of warfare?" was the underlying question in Hehir's speech, "War, Peace, and Terror: Defining the Relationships" to a crowd of approximately 25 in Goddard Chapel.

"It seems contradictory -- taking lives must not be moral -- and that's what most people automatically think of when they think of war," Hehir said. "But you have to realize that wars are fought, lost, and measured in moral terms."

Hehirt listed three justifications for war in the political and religious spectrums: non-violence/pacifism, historical realism, and the "just war" defense position.

"The historic Protestant tradition has been rooted in pacifism -- the institution that warfare is morally wrong, and therefore the people who support this situation will resist any and all uses of warfare," Hehir said. Today's pacifists are concerned with the processes of "peace-building" and "conflict resolution" to convey anti-war sentiments.

Historical realism represents the opposite ideology. As Hehir puts it, "the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must." These realists, according to Hehir, possess moral restraints. When war is involved, however, these morals are pushed aside and the primary focus becomes a basic desire to win the war.

Hehir's personally believes that the "just war" is ideal relationship between religion and war. In this situation, religious beliefs are the framework around which justification for war is built. "There are some uses of force that are morally acceptable, but if these reasons are moral, they are limited in uses and motives," Hehir said.

The concept of a just war (and alternatively, unjust wars) has been around since the pre-Christian era and has continued until present day, where its revival has been fuelled by the war in Iraq and the ongoing threat of terrorism. "As a policy and a personal ethic, just war raises to the public a series of questions that are above the concepts of winning and losing," Hehir said.

Hehir listed three just war "legacies" that have come together after the recent occupation of Iraq: the Cold War, the humanitarian and military intervention of the 1990s, and the "new century."

The Cold War brought to attention the threat of weapons of mass destruction, the balance of terror, and nuclear deterrence. "The problem that we face today, however, is different. During the Cold War, the big question was 'How do we deal with these two superpowers?' Today, the threat is no longer about superpowers, but how easily accessible these weapons are," Hehir said.

As the Cold War waned and the world entered 1990s, the public's questions evolved from "How do we avoid catastrophic damage?" to one of "How do we deal with the creeping chaos?" Hehir listed Haiti, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Liberia as nations that brought international jurisprudence to attention. This remains an issue with this month's incident of genocide in Rwanda.

The rise of the discussion of terror encompassed what Hehir called the "new century." Three schools of terrorism were gathered together in response to the terrorist attacks. Transnational terrorism, which applies best to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is the ability of a group of people to wreak havoc and terror across the world, Hehir said. Transcendent terror is violence prompted by a mix of religion and politics ideologies while traditional terrorism is the motivation to attack so-called "soft targets," like major cities.

"It has become more and more complicated to understand why we use force these days," Hehir said. He named the threat of weapons of mass destruction, justification, and human rights violations to be among the top reasons for the use of force. "But with regard to human rights, short of genocide, should they always be resolved with force?" Hehir concluded.

Somerville resident Roberta Ellison was in attendance and found Hehir's talk to be "extremely intellectually stimulating and informed." Ellison was disappointed that not as many people showed up to the event as she thought Hehir deserved. "He's a great orator and when I heard he would be speaking here, I jumped at the chance. It's too bad that not too many other Tufts students were aware of this."

Hehir was invited on the behalf of the University's year-long lecture series on politics and religion. Hehir is currently the president of social services and charities within the Archdiocese of Boston as well as a visiting Professor of Practice of Religion and Public Life at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.