Welcome to Unit A2 7: Global Issues
Welcome to your study notes for the Global Issues chapter of CCEA A2 Unit 7: Global Ethics! This unit explores some of the most critical ethical debates facing humanity today: when (if ever) is violence justified, and how should society deal with wrongdoing?
Don't worry if these big philosophical questions feel overwhelming at first. We will break every concept down step-by-step with clear definitions, key thinkers, biblical foundations, and handy memory aids to help you secure the highest marks in both your standard essays (AO1 & AO2) and the synoptic paper.
Quick Exam Snapshot:
Unit A2 7 is assessed through a 2-hour written examination (worth 50% of your A2 award and 30% of your overall A Level). The paper contains:
• Section A: Three structured essay questions (you choose two, each split into AO1 Knowledge and AO2 Critical Evaluation).
• Section B: One compulsory Synoptic Assessment question focusing on the overarching theme of Conscience, Freedom and Tolerance.
PART 1: War and Peace
1. Just War Theory (Bellum Justum)
Just War Theory is a middle-ground ethical framework between complete non-violence (pacifism) and unrestricted conflict (realism). It suggests that while war is terrible, it is sometimes morally necessary to prevent a greater evil.
Historical Development & Key Thinkers:
• St. Augustine of Hippo (4th/5th Century): The father of Christian Just War thinking. Augustine argued that peace is the true goal of life, but a war can be justified if it is waged under the authority of a legitimate ruler to defend the innocent and punish evil.
• St. Thomas Aquinas (13th Century): In his masterpiece Summa Theologiae, Aquinas systematised Just War into three foundational conditions:
1. Legitima Auctoritas (Legitimate Authority)
2. Justa Causa (Just Cause)
3. Intentio Recta (Right Intention)
• Francisco de Vitoria & Hugo Grotius (16th–17th Century): Extended the theory into secular international law, focusing heavily on non-combatant immunity and proportionate conduct.
The Three Pillars of Just War:
A. Jus ad Bellum (Justice in going to war)
These are the seven strict conditions that must all be satisfied before a state can morally declare war:
1. Legitimate Authority: War must be declared by a lawful, recognized governing body (not by private individuals or rebel factions).
2. Just Cause: The war must confront a grave wrong, such as self-defence against severe aggression or stopping massive human rights abuses.
3. Right Intention: The sole motivation must be to establish a just peace, not for territorial expansion, revenge, or economic greed.
4. Last Resort: Every non-violent and diplomatic solution (e.g., peace talks, sanctions, mediation) must be entirely exhausted first.
5. Proportionality of Ends: The expected good achieved by winning the war must clearly outweigh the anticipated death and destruction caused.
6. Reasonable Chance of Success: A state must not enter a hopeless war that results in futile slaughter with no realistic hope of victory.
7. Comparative Justice: The injustice suffered by one party must be significantly greater than that suffered by the other; no side has absolute righteousness.
Memory Trick for Jus ad Bellum: Think "A Just Leader Researches Proper Peaceful Causes" (Authority, Just cause, Last resort, Right intention, Proportionality, Probability of success, Comparative justice).
B. Jus in Bello (Justice within war)
These are the rules of conduct that soldiers and commanders must obey on the battlefield:
1. Proportionality of Means: The amount of force used in any military action must be strictly limited to what is needed to achieve the specific military objective. Using extreme, unnecessary force is immoral.
2. Discrimination / Non-Combatant Immunity: Combatants must strictly distinguish between enemy fighters and innocent civilians. It is never morally permissible to deliberately target non-combatants, civilian homes, or medical facilities.
C. Jus post Bellum (Justice after war)
Ethical obligations do not vanish when the shooting stops:
1. Just Termination: Peace settlements must be fair, avoiding humiliating terms that breed future conflict.
2. Reconstruction & Accountability: Victorious nations have an ethical duty to help rebuild destroyed infrastructure, restore basic human rights, and hold individuals accountable through fair war crime trials.
2. Holy War and Realism
Holy War (Jus Divinum / Crusade / Jihad):
A Holy War is a conflict authorised directly by a religious mandate or spiritual authority to defend religious faith, convert non-believers, or protect sacred sites.
Key Contrast: Unlike Just War Theory (which is constrained by strict universal moral laws, proportionality, and international treaties), Holy War is often seen as an absolute divine command where normal ethical limits may be bypassed.
Moral Realism / Realpolitik:
Realism claims that morality does not apply to warfare. In international relations, states exist in a state of anarchy where the primary law is self-preservation and national interest.
Key Idea: Once war begins, leaders must use whatever means necessary to survive and win. Ethics, according to realists, are secondary to survival.
3. Pacifism
Pacifism is the ethical belief that war and physical violence are fundamentally unjustifiable and that conflicts should always be settled peacefully.
Biblical Foundations & Teachings of Jesus:
Christian pacifism is rooted directly in the life and ministry of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount:
• "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." (Matthew 5:9)
• "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:39)
• "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
Early pre-Constantinian Christians widely refused military service, viewing lethal violence as incompatible with Christ's law of love (agape).
The Four Classifications of Pacifism:
• Absolute Pacifism: The absolute conviction that violence and killing in war are never morally acceptable under any circumstance, regardless of the consequences.
• Relative / Conditional Pacifism: War is viewed as intrinsically evil, but extreme real-world situations (such as stopping an ongoing genocide) may make military action the "lesser of two evils."
• Selective / Nuclear Pacifism: The rejection of specific types of warfare, particularly Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), because their indiscriminate and catastrophic nature makes ethical conduct impossible.
• Active Pacifism: Refusing to use violence while actively pursuing positive peace through non-violent direct action, humanitarian relief, peacebuilding, and conscientious objection. Examples include the Quaker tradition, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi.
Common Mistake to Avoid: Never describe pacifism as "passive" or "doing nothing." Active pacifists take immense personal risks on frontlines to resist injustice without using violence.
4. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Modern Warfare
Categories of WMD: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) weapons.
Ethical Critique via Just War Theory:
Most ethicists argue that WMDs automatically violate Jus in Bello:
1. Failure of Discrimination: Nuclear fallout, biological agents, and toxic gases cannot distinguish between soldiers and innocent children.
2. Failure of Proportionality: The catastrophic, multi-generational devastation caused to human life and the environment far exceeds any legitimate military objective.
Key Concepts in Modern Conflict:
• Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): The Cold War military doctrine that if two opposing sides possess enough nuclear capability to annihilate one another, neither side will launch a first strike.
• Nuclear Deterrence: The strategy of maintaining a nuclear arsenal solely to threaten unbearable retaliation and thereby prevent foreign aggression.
• Humanitarian Intervention & High-Tech Warfare: Modern warfare raises new questions regarding drone strikes and cyber-warfare—specifically whether remote-control killing dehumanises conflict or reduces civilian casualties.
Key Takeaway for War & Peace: Just War Theory sets high moral hurdles for entering war (jus ad bellum) and fighting war (jus in bello). While Realists reject ethical limits and Holy War claims divine mandates, Pacifists argue that true Christian ethics and human dignity demand complete rejection of violent conflict.
PART 2: Justice, Law and Punishment
1. Aims and Theories of Punishment
Why does the state have the authority to punish lawbreakers? Philosophers divide the justification of punishment into five primary aims:
1. Retribution (Retributive Justice):
• Focus: Backward-looking (focused strictly on the crime already committed).
• Concept: Rooted in the ancient legal principle of lex talionis ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth").
• Philosophical Basis: Supported by Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics. The offender deserves punishment in direct proportion to the crime they freely committed to restore moral balance in society.
2. Deterrence:
• Focus: Forward-looking / Consequentialist (Utilitarian).
• Individual Deterrence: Punishing the criminal severely enough so that they will fear committing the crime again.
• General Deterrence: Making an example of the criminal to discourage wider society from committing similar offences.
3. Rehabilitation / Reformation:
• Focus: Healing and transforming the offender.
• Concept: Seeks to address the root causes of criminal behaviour through education, vocational training, psychological counselling, and addiction support so the offender can re-enter society as a law-abiding citizen.
4. Protection / Incapacitation:
• Focus: Safeguarding public safety.
• Concept: Physically removing the offender's capability to cause harm by placing them in prison, using electronic tagging, or curfews.
5. Reparation / Restorative Justice:
• Focus: Repairing the harm done.
• Concept: Requiring the offender to make amends to the victim and the community (e.g., community service, financial restitution, or facilitated mediation).
Quick Review Matrix:
• Retribution = Punish because they deserve it (deontological/backward-looking).
• Deterrence = Punish to scare others away from crime (utilitarian/forward-looking).
• Rehabilitation = Reform and educate the criminal.
• Protection = Lock away the criminal to keep society safe.
• Reparation = Make the criminal pay back or heal the damage.
2. Capital Punishment (The Death Penalty)
Capital punishment is the state-sanctioned execution of an individual as a punishment for a capital offence (such as murder or treason).
Arguments in Favour (Retentionism)
• Ultimate Retribution: For the most monstrous crimes, life imprisonment is insufficient. Taking an innocent life warrants the ultimate forfeiture of one's own life to satisfy justice.
• Biblical Mandates: Old Testament scriptures frequently prescribe capital punishment:
"Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." (Genesis 9:6)
Exodus 21 also lists specific death-penalty offences under Mosaic law.
• Absolute Protection & Incapacitation: An executed offender can never re-offend, escape prison, or harm prison guards and fellow inmates.
• Ultimate Deterrence: The fear of death acts as a powerful psychological barrier against premeditated murder.
Arguments Against (Abolitionism)
• Sanctity of Human Life (Imago Dei): Genesis 1:27 teaches that all humans are created in the image of God. Human life possesses an absolute, intrinsic dignity that no government has the moral right to destroy.
• Fallibility of Justice (Irrevocability): Human legal systems are fallible. Eyewitness errors, corrupted evidence, and incompetent defences lead to innocent people being wrongfully convicted. Once executed, a mistake cannot be undone.
• Discrimination and Bias: Statistical data consistently shows that the death penalty falls disproportionately upon ethnic minorities, the poor, and those unable to afford high-quality legal defence.
• Elimination of Redemption: Execution robs the offender of any future possibility for moral repentance, reform, and spiritual salvation.
• Modern Roman Catholic Position: Under Pope Francis, the Catholic Church revised the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2267) to declare capital punishment inadmissible in all cases, affirming that human dignity is not lost even after severe crimes and that modern penal facilities can adequately protect society without killing.
Key Takeaway for Punishment: While retributivists focus on proportional dessert (Kant, Old Testament lex talionis), abolitionists emphasize the Sanctity of Life (Imago Dei), human fallibility, and the Christian duty of reform and mercy.
PART 3: Synoptic Connections & Exam Strategy
1. The Synoptic Theme: Conscience, Freedom, and Tolerance
In Section B of your A2 7 exam, you will answer a compulsory synoptic question connecting Global Issues with the overarching theme of Conscience, Freedom and Tolerance.
How to connect the themes:
• War & Conscience: Explore Conscientious Objection. When the state demands military service, does the individual have a moral right to follow their conscience and refuse to kill? Discuss the tension between state security (freedom from harm) and religious/moral conscience (pacifism).
• Punishment & Tolerance: Consider whether a truly tolerant, civilized society should tolerate capital punishment, or whether state executions violate fundamental human rights and conscience. Does retributive punishment treat individuals merely as a means to an end, violating Kantian autonomy?
2. Pitfalls to Avoid in the Exam
• Muddling Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello: Do not put battlefield conduct rules (like civilian immunity) into your list for starting a war. Keep them in their distinct stages!
• Dropping Scholars: At A2 level, general opinions are not enough. Always reference named thinkers (Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, Kant, Bentham) and specific biblical passages (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 9:6, Matthew 5).
• Ignoring Contemporary Contexts: Elevate your AO2 evaluation by discussing modern realities, such as autonomous drone strikes, nuclear proliferation, and wrongful execution cases.