View topic on PhilPapers for more information
Related categories

97 found
Order:
More results on PhilPapers
1 — 50 / 97
  1. added 2019-05-31
    Preventive Wars, Just War Principles, and the United Nations.John W. Lango - 2005 - Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):247-268.
    This paper explores the question of whether the United Nations should engage in preventive military actions. Correlatively, it asks whether UN preventive military actions could satisfy just war principles. Rather than from the standpoint of the individual nation state, the ethics of preventive war is discussed from the standpoint of the UN. For the sake of brevity, only the legitimate authority, just cause, last resort, and proportionality principles are considered. Since there has been disagreement about the specific content of these (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. added 2018-07-07
    Weighing Lives in War- Foreign Vs. Domestic.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2018 - In Larry May (ed.), Cambridge Handbook on the Just War. pp. 186-198.
    I argue that the lives of domestic and enemy civilians should not receive equal weight in our proportionality calculations. Rather, the lives of enemy civilians ought to be “partially discounted” relative to the lives of domestic civilians. We ought to partially discount the lives of enemy civilians for the following reason (or so I argue). When our military wages a just war, we as civilians vest our right to self-defense in our military. This permits our military to weigh our lives (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. added 2018-06-18
    Just War Theory: Revisionists Vs Traditionalists.Seth Lazar - 2017 - Annual Review of Political Science 20:37-54.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. added 2018-06-18
    Evaluating the Revisionist Critique of Just War Theory.Seth Lazar - 2017 - Daedalus 146 (1):113-124.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. added 2018-06-18
    Proxy Battles in the Ethics of War.Seth Lazar & Laura Valentini - 2017 - In David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne & Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 3. London, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. added 2018-03-16
    Dignity, Self-Respect, and Bloodless Invasions.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2017 - In Ryan Jenkins & Bradley Strawser (eds.), Who Should Die? The Ethics of Killing in War. Oxford University Press.
    In Chapter 7, “Dignity, Self-Respect, and Bloodless Invasions”, Saba Bazargan-Forward asks How much violence can we impose on those attempting to politically subjugate us? According to Bazargan-Forward, “reductive individualism” answers this question by determining how much violence one can impose on an individual wrongly attempting to prevent one from political participation. Some have argued that the amount of violence one can permissibly impose in such situations is decidedly sub-lethal. Accordingly, this counterintuitive response has cast doubt on the reductive individualist project. (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. added 2018-03-05
    Polityka namierzania i zabijania: aspekty etyczne i prawne.Tomasz Żuradzki - 2014 - In Maciej Marszałek & Waldemar Kitler (eds.), Bezpieczeństwo narodowe i międzynarodowe wobec wyzwań współczesnego świata. Warszawa: Akademia Obrony Narodowej. pp. 509-522.
    Celem artykułu jest analiza prawnych i etycznych sposobów uzasadnienia dopuszczalności stosowania polityki namierzania i zabijania. Pojawiły się próby usprawiedliwienia tego typu działań poprzez odwołanie do egzekwowania prawa, reguł rządzących konfliktami zbrojnymi, sprawiedliwej odpłaty, prawa do obrony własnej. W artykule dokonuję analizy tych sposobów usprawiedliwiania polityki namierzania i zabijania, a następnie rozważam, które z nich faktycznie mogą uzasadniać tego typu politykę. Rozważania prowadzę w świetle głównej hipotezy projektu badawczego, który obecnie prowadzę, zakładającej, że normy regulujące dopuszczalność i sposoby toczenia konfliktów zbrojnych (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. added 2018-03-05
    Proporcjonalność w etyce wojny. O ograniczaniu całkowitej liczby ofiar konfliktów zbrojnych.Tomasz Żuradzki - 2014 - Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology 106 (2):279-298.
    Przemocy jest coraz mniej – zarówno w czasie pokoju, jak i podczas wojen. Na przykładzie trzech konfliktów zbrojnych z ostatnich lat zastanawiam się, czy decydenci powinni prowadzić działania zbrojne w taki sposób, by zminimalizować całkowitą liczbę ofiar. Pokazuję, że ani obowiązujące obecnie normy prawa międzynarodowego, ani osądy moralne na temat dopuszczalności stosowania przemocy nie wymagają od decydentów ograniczania całkowitej liczby ofiar konfliktów zbrojnych w każdym przypadku.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. added 2018-03-05
    Etyka wojny a dopuszczalność zabijania.Tomasz Żuradzki - 2010 - Diametros 25:103-117.
    W artykule wykażę, że szeroko rozpowszechnione poglądy na temat norm, które obowiązują żółnierzy na wojnie, pozostają w sprzeczności z moralnością ogólną. Etyka wojny dopuszcza działania, które w zwyczajnych sytuacjach nie tylko są uznawane za moralnie niedopuszczalne, ale wydają się czynami godnymi najwyższego moralnego potępienia. Zwracam uwagę na dwie wybrane rozbieżności między etyką ogólną a etyką wojny, tj. na problem związany z istnieniem asymetrii pomiędzy atakującymi i atakowanymi oraz na kwestię tego, kto jest właściwym celem moralnie usprawiedliwionego aktu przemocy. Odrzucając stanowiska (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  10. added 2018-03-01
    Drones and Dirty Hands.Ben Jones & John M. Parrish - 2016 - In Kerstin Fisk & Jennifer Ramos (eds.), Preventive Force: Drones, Targeted Killings, and the Transformation of Contemporary Warfare. New York, USA: New York University Press. pp. 283-312.
    The period known as the “War on Terror” has prompted a revival of interest in the idea of moral dilemmas and the problem of “dirty hands” in public life. Some contend that a policy of targeted killing of terrorist actors is (under specified but not uncommon circumstances) an instance of a dirty-handed moral dilemma – morally required yet morally forbidden, the least evil choice available in the circumstances, but one that nevertheless leaves an indelible moral stain on the character of (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. added 2017-12-13
    Terrorism, Jus Post Bellum and the Prospect of Peace.Anne Schwenkenbecher - 2017 - In Florian Demont-Biaggi (ed.), The Nature of Peace and the Morality of Armed Conflict. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 123-140.
    Just war scholars are increasingly focusing on the importance of jus post bellum – justice after war – for the legitimacy of military campaigns. Should something akin to jus post bellum standards apply to terrorist campaigns? Assuming that at least some terrorist actors pursue legitimate goals or just causes, do such actors have greater difficulty satisfying the prospect-of-success criterion of Just War Theory than military actors? Further, may the use of the terrorist method as such – state or non-state – (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. added 2017-11-22
    Standards of Risk in War and Civil Life.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2017 - In Florian Demont-Biaggi (ed.), The Nature of Peace and the Morality of Armed Conflict. Palgrave.
    Though the duties of care owed toward innocents in war and in civil life are at the bottom univocally determined by the same ethical principles, Bazargan-Forward argues that those very principles will yield in these two contexts different “in-practice” duties. Furthermore, the duty of care we owe toward our own innocents is less stringent than the duty of care we owe toward foreign innocents in war. This is because risks associated with civil life but not war (a) often increase the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. added 2017-11-22
    Compensation and Proportionality in War.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2017 - In Claire Finkelstein, Larry Larry & Jens David Ohlin (eds.), Weighing Lives in War. Oxford University Press).
    Even in just wars we infringe the rights of countless civilians whose ruination enables us to protect our own rights. These civilians are owed compensation, even in cases where the collateral harms they suffer satisfy the proportionality constraint. I argue that those who authorize or commit the infringements and who also benefit from those harms will bear that compensatory duty, even if the unjust aggressor cannot or will not discharge that duty. I argue further that if we suspect antecedently that (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. added 2017-11-22
    Varieties of Contingent Pacifism in War.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2014 - In Helen Frowe & Gerald Lang (eds.), How We Fight. Oxford University Press. pp. 1-17.
    The destruction wrought by even just wars lends undeniable appeal to radical pacifism, according to which all wars are unjust. Yet radical pacifism is fundamentally flawed. In the past decade, a moderate and more defensible form of pacifism has emerged. According to what has been called ‘contingent pacifism’, it is very unlikely that it is morally permissible to wage any given war. This chapter develops the doctrine of contingent pacifism by distinguishing and developing various versions of it, and by assessing (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. added 2017-11-22
    Proportionality, Territorial Occupation, and Enabled Terrorism.Saba Bazargan - 2013 - Law and Philosophy 32 (4):435-457.
    Some collateral harms affecting enemy civilians during a war are agentially mediated – for example, the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 sparked an insurgency which killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. I call these ‘collaterally enabled harms.’ Intuitively, we ought to discount the weight that these harms receive in the ‘costs’ column of our ad bellum proportionality calculation. But I argue that an occupying military force with de facto political authority has a special obligation to provide minimal protection to the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  16. added 2017-06-16
    Cosmopolitan Peace Cecile Fabre. [REVIEW]Michael Kocsis - forthcoming - Dialogue.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. added 2017-04-13
    Putting the War Back in Just War Theory: A Critique of Examples.Rigstad Mark - 2017 - Ethical Perspectives 24 (1):123-144.
    Analytic just war theorists often attempt to construct ideal theories of military justice on the basis of intuitions about imaginary and sometimes outlandish examples, often taken from non-military contexts. This article argues for a sharp curtailment of this method and defends, instead, an empirically and historically informed approach to the ethical scrutiny of armed conflicts. After critically reviewing general philosophical reasons for being sceptical of the moral-theoretic value of imaginary hypotheticals, the article turns to some of the special problems that (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. added 2017-02-24
    Liability, Community, and Just Conduct in War.Jonathan Parry - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (12):3313-3333.
    Those of us who are not pacifists face an obvious challenge. Common-sense morality contains a stringent constraint on intentional killing, yet war involves homicide on a grand scale. If wars are to be morally justified, it needs be shown how this conflict can be reconciled. A major fault line running throughout the contemporary just war literature divides two approaches to attempting this reconciliation. On a ‘reductivist’ view, defended most prominently by Jeff McMahan, the conflict is largely illusory, since such killing (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. added 2017-02-24
    Defensive Wars and the Reprisal Dilemma.Saba Bazargan - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (3):583-601.
    I address a foundational problem with accounts of the morality of war that are derived from the Just War Tradition. Such accounts problematically focus on ‘the moment of crisis’: i.e. when a state is considering a resort to war. This is problematic because sometimes the state considering the resort to war is partly responsible for wrongly creating the conditions in which the resort to war becomes necessary. By ignoring this possibility, JWT effectively ignores, in its moral evaluation of wars, certain (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. added 2017-02-24
    Just War Theory, Legitimate Authority, and Irregular Belligerency.Jonathan Parry - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (1):175-196.
    Since its earliest incarnations, just war theory has included the requirement that war must be initiated and waged by a legitimate authority. However, while recent years have witnessed a remarkable resurgence in interest in just war theory, the authority criterion is largely absent from contemporary discussions. In this paper I aim to show that this is an oversight worth rectifying, by arguing that the authority criterion plays a much more important role within just war theorising than is commonly supposed. As (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  21. added 2017-02-24
    Not Just Cyberwarfare.Bruce Christianson - 2015 - Philosophy and Technology 28 (3):359-363.
    Bringsjord and Licato provide a general meta-argument that cyberwarfare is so different from traditional kinetic warfare that no argument from analogy can allow the just war theory of Augustine and Aquinas to be pulled over from traditional warfare to cyberwarfare. I believe that this meta-argument is sound and that it applies not just to cyberwarfare: in particular, on my reading of the meta-argument, argument from analogy has never been adequate to allow JWT to be applied to the kind of warfare (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. added 2017-02-24
    Just Surveillance? Towards a Normative Theory of Surveillance.Kevin Macnish - 2014 - Surveillance and Society 12 (1):142-153.
    Despite recent growth in surveillance capabilities there has been little discussion regarding the ethics of surveillance. Much of the research that has been carried out has tended to lack a coherent structure or fails to address key concerns. I argue that the just war tradition should be used as an ethical framework which is applicable to surveillance, providing the questions which should be asked of any surveillance operation. In this manner, when considering whether to employ surveillance, one should take into (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23. added 2017-02-24
    Jus Ad Vim and the Just Use of Lethal Force Short of War.S. Brandt Ford - 2013 - In Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas Evans & Adam Henschke (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century. Routledge. pp. 63--75.
    In this chapter, I argue that the notion which Michael Walzer calls jus ad vim might improve the moral evaluation for using military lethal force in conflicts other than war, particularly those situations of conflict short-of-war. First, I describe his suggested approach to morally justifying the use of lethal force outside the context of war. I argue that Walzer’s jus ad vim is a broad concept that encapsulates a state’s mechanisms for exercising power short-of-war. I focus on his more narrow (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. added 2017-02-24
    Complicitous Liability in War.Saba Bazargan - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (1):177-195.
    Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-based account of killing in warfare. On this account, a combatant is morally liable to be killed only if doing so is an effective means of reducing or eliminating an unjust threat to which that combatant is contributing. Since combatants fighting for a just cause generally do not contribute to unjust threats, they are not morally liable to be killed; thus MEC is mistaken. The problem, however, (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  25. added 2017-02-24
    Unjust War and a Soldier's Moral Dilemma.Jeff Montrose - 2013 - Journal of Military Ethics 12 (4):325-340.
    This paper explores the central question of why soldiers in democratic societies might decide to fight in wars that they may have reason to believe are objectively or questionably unjust. First, I provide a framework for understanding the dilemma caused by an unjust war and a soldier's competing moral obligations; namely, the obligations to self and state. Next, I address a few traditional key thoughts concerning soldiers and jus ad bellum. This is followed by an exploration of the unique and (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  26. added 2017-02-24
    A Challenge to the Reigning Theory of the Just War.Christian Barry - 2011 - International Affairs 87 (2):457-466.
    Troubled times often gives rise to great art that reflects those troubles. So too with political theory. The greatest work of twentieth century political theory, John Rawls's A theory of justice, was inspired in various respects by extreme social and economic inequality, racialized slavery and racial segregation in the United States. Arguably the most influential work of political theory since Rawls—Michael Walzer's Just and unjust wars—a sustained and historically informed reflection on the morality of interstate armed conflict—was written in the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. added 2017-02-24
    Tensions in a Certain Conception of Just War as Law Enforcement.Jacob Blair - 2008 - Res Publica 14 (4):303-311.
    Many just war theorists (call them traditionalists) claim that just as people have a right to personal self-defense, so nations have a right to national-defense against an aggressive military invasion. David Rodin claims that the traditionalist is unable to justify most defensive wars against aggression. For most aggressive states only commit conditional aggression in that they threaten to kill or maim the citizens of the nation they are invading only if those citizens resist the occupation. Most wars, then, claimed to (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  28. added 2017-02-24
    War & Ethics: A New Just War Theory. [REVIEW]Joshua Finnell - 2008 - Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought 3 (1).
    In War & Ethics, Nicholas Fotion undertakes three main tasks. The first is critical: to analyze ‘Just War Theory’ (JWT) in the evolving context of modern warfare between nations and non-nation groups, using various case studies to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. The second task is modification: to construct a new Just War Theory to incorporate wars between nations (JWT-Regular) and wars between nations and non-nation groups (JWT-Irregular). The third and final task is defensive: to show that (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. added 2017-02-24
    Jus Ad Bellum After 9/11: A State of the Art Report.Mark Rigstad - 2007 - International Political Theory Beacon.
    An examination of the applicability of conventional and revisionist just war principles to the global war on terror.
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30. added 2017-02-24
    Leave No Oil Reserves Behind, Including Iraq's.Edmund F. Byrne - 2006 - Radical Philosophy Today 2006:39-54.
    Just war theory needs to become a real-time critique of government war propaganda in order to facilitate peace advocacy ante bellum. This involves countering asserted justificatory reasons with demonstrable facts that reveal other motives, thereby yielding reflective understanding which can be collectivized via electronic media. As a case in point, I compare here the publicly declared reasons for the U.S./U.K. invasion of Iraq in 2003 with reasons discussed internally months and even years before in government and think-tank documents. These sources (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  31. added 2017-02-24
    Book Review Of: Can Modern War Be Just? [REVIEW]Gary James Jason - 1985 - Chronicles of Culture (June).
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. added 2016-12-08
    The Liability of Justified Attackers.Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):1016-1030.
    McMahan argues that justification defeats liability to defensive attack (which would undermine the thesis of the "moral equality of combatants"). In response, I argue, first, that McMahan’s attempt to burden the contrary claim with counter-intuitive implications fails; second, that McMahan’s own position implies that the innocent civilians do not have a right of self-defense against justified attackers, which neither coheres with his description of the case (the justified bombers infringe the rights of the civilians) nor with his views about rights (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33. added 2016-12-07
    The Moral Equality of Combatants.Barry Christian & Christie Lars - 2017 - In Seth Lazar & Helen Frowe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants holds that combatants on either side of a war have equal moral status, even if one side is fighting a just war while the other is not. This chapter examines arguments that have been offered for and against this doctrine, including the collectivist position famously articulated by Walzer and McMahan’s influential individualist critique. We also explore collectivist positions that have rejected the moral equality doctrine and arguments that some individualists have offered in (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. added 2016-10-31
    Drones and the Threshold for Waging War.Ezio Di Nucci - forthcoming - Politik.
    I argue that, if drones make waging war easier, the reason why they do so may not be the one commonly assumed within the philosophical debate – namely the promised reduction in casualties on either side – but a more complicated one which has little to do with concern for one’s own soldiers or, for that matter, the enemy; and a lot more to do with the political intricacies of international relations and domestic politics; I use the example of the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. added 2016-08-17
    Non-Culpable Ignorance and Just War Theory.Jovan Babic - 2007 - Filozofija I Društvo 18 (3):59-68.
    The so called ′non-culpable ignorance′ is an instrument to justify participating in a war on a defeated side, on condition that fighters sincerely believe that they are defending a just cause and had some valid reasons to believe in having a chance to win. Within the just war theory this instrument is needed to make both sides prima facie right, otherwise the theory would imply that those who lose are guilty in advance, especially if they are the weaker side. However, (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. added 2016-08-15
    Is There a Duty to Militarily Intervene to Stop a Genocide?Uwe Steinhoff - forthcoming - In Christian Neuhäuser & Christoph Schuck (eds.), Military Interventions: Considerations from Philosophy and Political Science.
    Is there is a moral obligation to militarily intervene in another state to stop a genocide from happening (if this can be done with proportionate force)? My answer is that under exceptional circumstances a state or even a non-state actor might have a duty to stop a genocide (for example if these actors have promised to do so), but under most circumstances there is no such obligation. To wit, “humanity,” states, collectives, and individuals do not have an obligation to make (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. added 2016-08-15
    Just Cause and the Continuous Application of Jus Ad Bellum.Uwe Steinhoff - forthcoming - In Larry May May, Shannon Elizabeth Fyfe & Eric Joseph Ritter (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook on Just War Theory. Cambridge University Press.
    What one is ultimately interested in with regard to ‘just cause’ is whether a specific war, actual or potential, is justified. I call this ‘the applied question’. Answering this question requires knowing the empirical facts on the ground. However, an answer to the applied question regarding a specific war requires a prior answer to some more general questions, both descriptive and normative. These questions are: What kind of thing is a ‘just cause’ for war (an aim, an injury or wrong (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. added 2016-08-11
    Super Soldiers and Technological Asymmetry.Robert Mark Simpson - 2015 - In J. Galliott & M. Lotz (eds.), Super Soldiers: The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications. Ashgate. pp. 81-91.
    In this chapter I argue that emerging soldier enhancement technologies have the potential to transform the ethical character of the relationship between combatants, in conflicts between ‘Superpower’ militaries, with the ability to deploy such technologies, and technologically disadvantaged ‘Underdog’ militaries. The reasons for this relate to Paul Kahn’s claims about the paradox of riskless warfare. When an Underdog poses no threat to a Superpower, the standard just war theoretic justifications for the Superpower’s combatants using lethal violence against their opponents breaks (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. added 2016-05-03
    When May Soldiers Participate in War?Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - International Theory 8 (2):262-296.
    I shall argue that in some wars both sides are (as a collective) justified, that is, they can both satisfy valid jus ad bellum requirements. Moreover, in some wars – but not in all – the individual soldiers on the unjustified side (that is, on the side without jus ad bellum) may nevertheless kill soldiers (and also civilians as a side-effect) on the justified side, even if the enemy soldiers always abide by jus in bello constraints. Traditional just war theory (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. added 2016-04-26
    Assembling an Army: Considerations for Just War Theory.Nathan P. Stout - 2016 - Journal of Global Ethics 12 (2):204-221.
    ABSTRACTThe aim of this paper is to draw attention to an issue which has been largely overlooked in contemporary just war theory – namely the impact that the conditions under which an army is assembled are liable to have on the judgments that are made with respect to traditional principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. I argue that the way in which an army is assembled can significantly alter judgments regarding the justice of a war. In doing (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. added 2016-04-06
    A Life of Struggle as Ubuntu.Thaddeus Metz - 2018 - In Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni & Busani Ngcaweni (eds.), Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela: Decolonial Ethics of Liberation and Servant Leadership. Africa World Press. pp. 97-111.
    In this chapter I aim to provide a moral-philosophical grounding for much of Nelson Rolihlaha Mandela’s life. I spell out a principled interpretation of ubuntu that focuses on its moral import, and then apply it to salient facets of Mandela’s 50+ struggle years, contending that they exemplify it in many ways. Specifically, I first address Mandela’s decisions to fight apartheid in the 1940s, to use violence in response to it in the 1950s and ‘60s, and to refuse to renounce the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. added 2016-03-24
    The South African Student/Worker Uprisings in Light of Just War Theory.Thaddeus Metz - 2016 - In Susan Booysen (ed.), FeesMustFall: Student Revolt, Decolonisation and Governance in South Africa. Wits University Press. pp. 292-308.
    I critically examine the South African university student and worker protests of 2015/2016 in light of moral principles governing the use of force that are largely uncontested in both the contemporary Western and African philosophies of just war, violence and threats. Amongst these principles are: “discrimination”, according to which force should be directed not towards innocent bystanders but instead should target those particularly responsible for injustice; “likely success”, meaning that, instead of being counter-productive, the use of force must be reasonably (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. added 2016-03-02
    The Burden of Autonomy, Non-Combatant Immunity and Humanitarian Intervention.William Cornwell - 2005 - Ethical Perspectives 12 (3):341-355.
    Michael Walzer argues that except in cases involving genocide or mass slaughter, humanitarian intervention is unjustifiable because “citizens get the government they deserve, or, at least, the government for which they are ‘fit.’”Yet, if people are autonomous and deserve the government that rules over them, then it would seem that they are responsible for the government’s actions, including their nation’s wars of aggression.That line of thought undermines the doctrine of noncombatant immunity, which is perhaps the most important of Walzer’s jus (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. added 2015-11-07
    Autonomous Killer Robots Are Probably Good News.Vincent C. Müller - 2016 - In Ezio Di Nucci & Filippo Santonio de Sio (eds.), Drones and responsibility: Legal, philosophical and socio-technical perspectives on the use of remotely controlled weapons. Ashgate. pp. 67-81.
    Will future lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), or ‘killer robots’, be a threat to humanity? The European Parliament has called for a moratorium or ban of LAWS; the ‘Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention at the United Nations’ are presently discussing such a ban, which is supported by the great majority of writers and campaigners on the issue. However, the main arguments in favour of a ban are unsound. LAWS do not support extrajudicial killings, they do not take responsibility away (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45. added 2015-11-07
    Just War and Robots’ Killings.Thomas W. Simpson & Vincent C. Müller - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 66 (263):302-22.
    May lethal autonomous weapons systems—‘killer robots ’—be used in war? The majority of writers argue against their use, and those who have argued in favour have done so on a consequentialist basis. We defend the moral permissibility of killer robots, but on the basis of the non-aggregative structure of right assumed by Just War theory. This is necessary because the most important argument against killer robots, the responsibility trilemma proposed by Rob Sparrow, makes the same assumptions. We show that the (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  46. added 2015-11-06
    Killer Robots: Regulate, Don’T Ban.Vincent C. Müller & Thomas W. Simpson - 2014 - In University of Oxford, Blavatnik School of Government Policy Memo. Blavatnik School of Government. pp. 1-4.
    Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems are here. Technological development will see them become widespread in the near future. This is in a matter of years rather than decades. When the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons meets on 10-14th November 2014, well-considered guidance for a decision on the general policy direction for LAWS is clearly needed. While there is widespread opposition to LAWS—or ‘killer robots’, as they are popularly called—and a growing campaign advocates banning them outright, we argue the opposite. LAWS (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. added 2015-10-20
    Non-Combatant Immunity and War-Profiteering.Saba Bazargan - 2017 - In Helen Frowe & Lazar Seth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and War. Oxford University Press.
    The principle of noncombatant immunity prohibits warring parties from intentionally targeting noncombatants. I explicate the moral version of this view and its criticisms by reductive individualists; they argue that certain civilians on the unjust side are morally liable to be lethally targeted to forestall substantial contributions to that war. I then argue that reductivists are mistaken in thinking that causally contributing to an unjust war is a necessary condition for moral liability. Certain noncontributing civilians—notably, war-profiteers—can be morally liable to be (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48. added 2015-10-20
    Review: War and Self-Defense. [REVIEW]Christopher Woodard - 2005 - Mind 114 (454):453-457.
    A review of David Rodin's Book, War and Self-Defense.
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. added 2015-08-31
    Self-Defense and the Necessity Condition.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    Rights forfeiture or liability are not a path to the permissibility of self-defense (not even barring extraordinary circumstances), and the necessity condition is not intrinsic to justified self-defense. Rather, necessity in the context of justification must be distinguished from necessity in the context of rights forfeiture. While innocent aggressors only forfeit their right against necessary self-defense, culpable aggressors also forfeit, on grounds of a principle of reciprocity, certain rights against unnecessary self-defense. Yet, while culpable aggressors would therefore not be wronged (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. added 2015-08-31
    Shortcomings of and Alternatives to the Rights-Forfeiture Theory of Justified Self-Defense and Punishment.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    I argue that rights-forfeiture by itself is no path to permissibility at all (even barring special circumstances), neither in the case of self-defense nor in the case of punishment. The limiting conditions of self-defense, for instance – necessity, proportionality (or no gross disproportionality), and the subjective element – are different in the context of forfeiture than in the context of justification (and might even be absent in the former context). In particular, I argue that a culpable aggressor, unlike an innocent (...)
    Remove from this list   Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 97