When, if ever, is the use of force justified, and what do religious and non-religious viewpoints say about war, peace and pacifism?
Religion and Conflict: the causes of war, Just War theory and its conditions, pacifism, weapons of mass destruction and modern warfare, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Religion and Conflict, covering the causes of war, Just War theory and its conditions, pacifism, weapons of mass destruction and modern warfare, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Religion and Conflict is a moral context in the Morality and Belief area. It examines war and peace: why wars happen, when (if ever) force is justified (Just War theory), the case for pacifism, and the special problems of modern warfare and weapons of mass destruction, all from religious and non-religious viewpoints. The SQA wants you to know the Just War conditions, contrast them with pacifism, and evaluate a position with a judgement.
The causes of war and the search for peace
- Causes of war are debated: competition for land and resources, ideology and religion, nationalism, fear and the pursuit of power. Understanding causes helps in judging when, if ever, war is justified.
- Religions hold up peace and reconciliation as goals, while differing on whether force is ever permissible in their service.
Just War theory
- Jus ad bellum (going to war): just cause (such as defence against aggression), legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, reasonable chance of success, and proportionality (the expected good outweighs the harm).
- Jus in bello (conduct in war): discrimination (protecting non-combatants and civilians) and proportionality of means (no more force than necessary).
- The theory exists to limit war: force is only justified when the conditions are met, and a war can become unjust if it breaks the rules of conduct.
Pacifism
- Pacifism rejects the use of violence to settle conflict. It appeals to the sanctity of life, the conviction that violence breeds violence, the success of non-violent resistance, and religious teaching such as turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies.
- Some religious traditions are strongly pacifist; others accept Just War reasoning. So within a single religion there can be both pacifists and supporters of justified force.
- Critics argue that pacifism can leave the innocent undefended against aggression, which is the main charge Just War thinkers level against it.
Modern warfare and weapons of mass destruction
- WMD strain Just War theory: a weapon that kills indiscriminately struggles to meet discrimination, and the scale of harm challenges proportionality.
- Debates such as nuclear deterrence ask whether the threat of such weapons, even if their use would be wrong, can be justified to prevent war.
- Non-religious viewpoints weigh the consequences for human welfare, frequently reaching similar conclusions to religious Just War or pacifist positions while grounding them in wellbeing rather than divine teaching.
Try this
Q1. Give three conditions of jus ad bellum (the right to go to war). [3 marks]
- Cue. Any three of: just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, reasonable chance of success, proportionality.
Q2. Give one reason a pacifist rejects the use of force. [1 mark]
- Cue. The sanctity of life; or that violence breeds violence; or teaching such as turning the other cheek.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SQA Higher specimen8 marksExplain the conditions of Just War theory.Show worked answer →
An 8-mark "explain" question rewards developed understanding of the conditions and what each is for.
Set out the two parts. Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war): just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, reasonable chance of success, and proportionality (the good must outweigh the harm). Jus in bello (right conduct in war): discrimination (protecting non-combatants) and proportionality of means. Explain that the theory tries to limit war by setting strict tests, so that force is only justified when these are met. Develop several conditions with a sentence of explanation each to reach the top band; you can add that many Christians and non-religious thinkers use the theory.
SQA Higher specimen10 marksTo what extent is pacifism a realistic response to conflict?Show worked answer →
A 10-mark evaluation needs argument and a judgement; the realism of pacifism is the issue.
Argue for pacifism: violence breeds violence, non-violent resistance has succeeded (for example civil-rights and independence movements), and it upholds the sanctity of life and teachings such as turning the other cheek. Then weigh against: pacifism may leave the innocent undefended against aggression, and Just War theory argues force can be a lesser evil. Bring in religious views (pacifist traditions versus Just War Christians) and a non-religious view. Reach a supported judgement, for example that pacifism is a powerful moral ideal but that limited, justified force may sometimes be needed to protect the vulnerable.
Related dot points
- Religion and Justice: the nature and causes of crime, the aims of punishment (retribution, deterrence, protection, reformation, reparation), capital punishment, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Religion and Justice (crime and punishment), covering the causes of crime, the five aims of punishment, the death penalty debate, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond to questions of justice.
- Religion and Relationships: attitudes to sex, marriage and cohabitation, divorce, contraception, and the family, from religious and non-religious viewpoints.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Religion and Relationships, covering attitudes to sex before marriage, marriage and cohabitation, divorce, contraception and the family, from religious and non-religious viewpoints, with the skills to describe and evaluate them.
- Religion, Environment and Global Issues: stewardship and dominion, climate change and pollution, the use of resources, global poverty and inequality, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Religion, Environment and Global Issues, covering stewardship and dominion, climate change and pollution, the use of resources, global poverty and inequality, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond.
- Religion, Medicine and the Human Body: the sanctity and quality of life, abortion, euthanasia and end-of-life care, embryo research and reproductive technology, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Religion, Medicine and the Human Body, covering the sanctity and quality of life, abortion, euthanasia and end-of-life care, embryo research and reproductive technology, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond.
- The Existence of God: the cosmological, teleological (design) and ontological arguments, the case from religious experience, and challenges from atheism and the problem of evil.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on the Existence of God, covering the cosmological, design and ontological arguments and the argument from religious experience, the main objections, and the challenge from atheism, with the skills to evaluate them.