King 126 was full to the brim on Oct. 2, as students piled onto tables and leaned up against heaters around the room. With the amount of bodies, you’d expect some amount of shuffling or chatter, but instead there was only rapt, attentive silence. This was the scene as Joe Cole, visiting assistant professor of philosophy, began to speak about just war theory. Just war theory is the idea that there are cases where going to war is morally just, such as in the case of WWII or other events where direct attack or overwhelming moral imperative requires a nation’s involvement.

Unlike many people’s image of philosophy, this was not a group of old men smoking cigars and talking about the abstract, academic concerns of war. From the very beginning Cole made it clear that this was “not just an academic question,” and that this was a topic which many people, including himself, have experienced on a very personal level, most notably with the war in Iraq.

“I’ve had the experience of watching this (war) as a philosopher… and dealing with people who fought in the war.” Cole said, as he explained how he had seen the war reflected in the students in his philosophy classes these past eight years.

The talk’s primary focus was to discuss the two primary groups of ideas which make up just war theory: “Jus ad bellum” (justice towards war) and “Jus in bello” (justice during war). Jus ad bellum principles outline what make a war just to fight, while Jus in bello determines what is just to do during a war.

The talk spanned from giving a nod to the first Greek thinkers on the topic and ended up with analysis of how American and other leaders in the war on terror/Iraq War were applying – or mis-applying – the principles of just-war theory to those situations.

The discussion of what the Jus ad Bellum principle of “Legitimate Authority” meant particularly stuck with me. In the case of Al Qaeda’s attacks, Cole stated that Osama Bin Laden and others believed that their authority to carry out these attacks came from Allah, while the United States needed to draw their authority from Congress and the U.N.

It was interesting to see similar ideas reflected in opposed entities and how much one philosophical difference can make in terms of how the opposing sides regard civilian casualties – the United States and the United Nations came off as far more sensitive to civilian casualties.

Also in the framework of Jus ad bellum, the necessity of going to war was a very weighty question posed during the discussion. Exactly what necessity did the United States act on – if any – when going to war with Iraq? The discussion didn’t provide a satisfactory answer to the question, but it was an interesting exploration that raised significant doubts.

After the talk concluded, there was a question and answer session, ranging in topic from the Christian elements in just war theory to the legitimate authority of non-governmental organizations to the relative efficacy of the theory in reality. Almost everyone stayed through the end of the question and answer session, despite the fact that the cookies were gone. Junior Chelsea Hornick-Becker, who has studied just war theory, commented on Cole’s evenness in presenting the subject.

“He did it along the lines of the theory itself, not along the lines of his own personal theories.” Hornick-Becker said. Maria Hayden, ’06 alum and current CCE office staff member, said she “thought he explained (the theory) really well” and that it was a “great lead into the (vice presidential) debate,” which a few of the students stayed to watch with various members of the philosophy department afterwards.

As the talk ended, Cole stressed the importance of studying history. “Here I am, a philosopher, telling you to go read history,” he joked.

He stressed its importance in deconstructing the idea that the United States has been morally just in all of its war conduct. Other questions were raised about the possibility of imperialism and capitalism playing heavy roles in the United States’ decisions to go to war.

Overall, the talk went smoothly and everyone respected others’ thoughts on the subject. The discussion displayed a lot of what I came to Guilford to find: open debate, good thought, and tolerance of others’ views in an effort to better understand how we relate to the world.