Empirical Investigation of Normative Discourse on War: The Case of the Donagan—Aquinas Thesis

Quantitative and analytical social scientists increasingly have become interested in analyzing traditional normative problems. In this article we discuss the operationalization of conjectures contained in the Donagan—Aquinas thesis about the agreement of lay people and ethicists with the substantive content of the system of common morality concerning use of force. The thesis focuses on the complexity of reasoning at various levels in a claimed linkage between the golden rule, intermediate moral precepts, and just war theory. It holds that both lay people and ethicists who accept the golden rule also will accept the distinction between killing and murder; and both groups will reject pacificism, aggressive war, and amorality in favor of the moral acceptability of defensive war. However, this consensus between lay people and ethicists will break down on the more complex issues of war. The system of common morality is described as to its structure, derivation, and content, and the thesis is tested using national level survey data from five American elite groups. Most of the individuals surveyed support the principle of the golden rule and its application through just war theory regarding the moral complexities of conventional war, but the results to mutual assured destruction warfare items suggest a secular norm of negative reciprocity, which is analogous to the international legal concept of reprisal. We conclude that the Donagan—Aquinas thesis is supported regarding problems of conventional war, but its predictions — and the consensus among contemporary just war theorists — break down under the onslaught of the problems generated by nuclear weapons.