La magnanimidad en la guerra: Una aproximación Tomista para la doctrina de los ejércitos occidentales
Abstract
Article Review Fernando Pereira Bravo, “Magnanimity in War: A Thomistic Approach to Western Military Doctrine” Fernando Pereira Bravo’s article offers a rare and intellectually rigorous contribution to contemporary military ethics by recovering magnanimity (magnanimitas) as a structural virtue of Western military doctrine, rather than a merely personal or moral disposition. Drawing primarily on Thomistic philosophy, and situating it within the broader tradition of Christian humanism and classical thought, the author advances a compelling argument: that magnanimity is not only compatible with modern warfare, but is in fact indispensable to understanding the ethical foundations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and legitimate military conduct. The article opens by tracing the historical roots of Western military ethics to Christian humanism, highlighting the decisive influence of Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Francisco de Vitoria. Pereira Bravo correctly situates these thinkers as intellectual precursors of the just war tradition and, in Vitoria’s case, as foundational figures in the emergence of what would later become IHL. This historical framing is not merely descriptive; it establishes a doctrinal continuity between medieval moral theology and contemporary legal norms governing armed conflict. At the conceptual core of the article lies Aquinas’s definition of magnanimity as the virtue by which a person strives toward great deeds in accordance with reason and moral order. Pereira Bravo convincingly argues that, when transposed to the military sphere, magnanimity entails acting with nobility, restraint, generosity, and moral elevation, even—and especially—under conditions of war. This framing allows the author to move beyond reductive interpretations of military virtue focused solely on courage, discipline, or effectiveness. One of the article’s strongest contributions is its insistence that magnanimity is a social and relational virtue, not an inward or purely psychological one. Magnanimity requires recognition of the dignity of the adversary, including the enemy, and thus aligns directly with the humanitarian principles of humanity, proportionality, and respect for persons hors de combat. In this sense, the article implicitly reframes IHL not merely as a body of external legal constraints, but as the juridical expression of a deeper ethical architecture rooted in virtue. The author further enriches the analysis by engaging with classical philosophy, particularly Aristotle’s understanding of passions and virtues, and by dialoguing with contemporary doctrinal reflections—such as recent work linking emotions like anger to IHL. Against this background, magnanimity emerges as a counterweight to destructive passions, orienting military action toward justice and ultimately toward peace. A particularly insightful section connects magnanimity to modern military doctrine through the concept of “Winning Hearts and Minds” (WH&M), as developed in U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine (FM 3-24). Pereira Bravo persuasively argues that practices such as restraint in the use of force, protection of civilians, dignified treatment of populations, and legitimacy-based operations are not merely strategic tools, but contemporary doctrinal manifestations of magnanimity as a strategic virtue. This linkage between virtue ethics and operational doctrine is both original and doctrinally sound. In his conclusion, Pereira Bravo advances a clear and provocative thesis: magnanimity should be understood as a strategic-level military virtue, distinct from but superior to tactical virtues such as bravery, resilience, or discipline. While these latter virtues operate at the level of combat execution, magnanimity governs the orientation of force itself, ensuring that military victory does not undermine the conditions for a just and durable peace. In this respect, the article offers a normative criterion for evaluating not only how wars are fought, but whether their outcomes remain morally and legally sustainable. Overall, this article represents a highly original and intellectually robust contribution to military ethics, legal doctrine, and security studies. Its integration of Thomistic moral philosophy with contemporary IHL and military doctrine makes it particularly valuable for scholars and practitioners concerned with ethical leadership, legitimacy of force, and the moral foundations of Western defence policy.