Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Democratic Duty and the Moral Dilemmas of Soldiers.Cheyney Ryan - 2011 - Ethics 122 (1):10-42.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Introduction: Legitimate Authority, War, and the Ethics of Rebellion.Christopher J. Finlay, Jonathan Parry & Pål Wrange - 2017 - Ethics and International Affairs 31 (2):167-168.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Just War Theory: Revisionists Vs Traditionalists.Seth Lazar - 2017 - Annual Review of Political Science 20:37-54.
    Contemporary just war theory is divided into two broad camps: revisionists and traditionalists. Traditionalists seek to provide moral foundations for something close to current international law, and in particular the laws of armed conflict. Although they propose improvements, they do so cautiously. Revisionists argue that international law is at best a pragmatic fiction—it lacks deeper moral foundations. In this article, I present the contemporary history of analytical just war theory, from the origins of contemporary traditionalist just war theory in Michael (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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. pp. 166-193.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Ontological Omniscience in Lewisian Modal Realism.J. Reinert - 2013 - Analysis 73 (4):676-682.
    A simple argument against Lewisian modal realism as portrayed in On the Plurality of World arises from its treatment of doxastic modalities. It is easily shown that if it is true, it is impossible to doubt the theory on ontological grounds, or, that, if it is possible to maintain doubt about modal realism’s existential postulate, it has to be false. The argument hinges on the fact that modal realism’s main ontological hypothesis, if true, is necessarily true.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Democratic Authority and the Duty to Fight Unjust Wars.M. Renzo - 2013 - Analysis 73 (4):668-676.
    Just war theory is dominated by two positions. According to the traditional view, combatants both on the just and the unjust side have an equal right to fight, which is not affected by the justice of the cause pursued by their state. According to a recent revisionist account, only combatants fighting for a just cause have such right. David Estlund has offered a sophisticated account that aims to reconcile these two views by looking at our duty to obey the order (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Duty to Disobey Immigration Law.Javier Hidalgo - 2016 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 3 (2).
    Many political theorists argue that immigration restrictions are unjust and defend broadly open borders. In this paper, I examine the implications of this view for individual conduct. In particular, I argue that the citizens of states that enforce unjust immigration restrictions have duties to disobey certain immigration laws. States conscript their citizens to help enforce immigration law by imposing legal duties on these citizens to monitor, report, and refrain from interacting with unauthorized migrants. If an ideal of open borders is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Liberal Lustration.Yvonne Chiu - 2011 - Journal of Political Philosophy 19 (4):440-464.
    After a regime-changing war, a state often engages in lustration—condemnation and punishment of dangerous, corrupt, or culpable remnants of the previous system—e.g., de-Nazification or the more recent de-Ba’athification in Iraq. This common practice poses an important moral dilemma for liberals because even thoughtful and nuanced lustration involves condemning groups of people, instead of treating each case individually. It also raises important questions about collective agency, group treatment, and rectifying historical injustices. Liberals often oppose lustration because it denies moral individualism and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Military Veterans, Culpability, and Blame.Youngjae Lee - 2013 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (2):285-307.
    Recently in Porter v. McCollum, the United States Supreme Court, citing “a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service,” held that a defense lawyer’s failure to present his client’s military service record as mitigating evidence during his sentencing for two murders amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The purpose of this Article is to assess, from the just deserts perspective, the grounds to believe that veterans who commit crimes are to be blamed less by the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • When Is It Right to Fight? Just War Theory and the Individual-Centric Approach.James Pattison - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):35-54.
    Recent work in the ethics of war has done much to challenge the collectivism of the convention-based, Walzerian just war theory. In doing so, it raises the question of when it is permissible for soldiers to resort to force. This article considers this issue and, in doing so, argues that the rejection of collectivism in just war should go further still. More specifically, it defends the ‘Individual-Centric Approach’ to the deep morality of war, which asserts that the justifiability of an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Case for the Moral Permissibility of Amnesties: An Argument From Social Moral Epistemology.Juan Espindola - 2014 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (5):971-985.
    This paper makes the case for the permissibility of post-conflict amnesties, although not on prudential grounds. It argues that amnesties of a certain scope, targeted to certain categories of perpetrators, and offered in certain contexts are morally permissible because they are an acknowledgment of the difficulty of attributing criminal responsibility in mass violence contexts. Based on this idea, the paper develops the further claim that deciding which amnesties are permissible and which ones are not should be decided on a case-by-case (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • On the Claims of Unjust Institutions: Reciprocity, Justice and Noncompliance.Gabriel Wollner - 2019 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 18 (1):46-75.
    Just institutions have claims on us. There are two reasons for thinking that such claims are warranted. First, one may believe that we are under a natural duty of justice to support and further just institutions. If one believes that it matters whether institutions are just, one also has a reason, almost as a matter of consistency, to support and further just institutions. Second, one may believe that by enjoying the benefits brought about by cooperation through just institutions, one incurs (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Political Authority and Unjust Wars.Massimo Renzo - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (2):336-357.
    Just war theory is currently dominated by two positions. According to the orthodox view, provided that jus in bello principles are respected, combatants have an equal right to fight, regardless of the justice of the cause pursued by their state. According to “revisionists” whenever combatants lack reasons to believe that the war they are ordered to fight is just, their duty is to disobey. I argue that when members of a legitimate state acting in good faith are ordered to fight, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Professional Integrity and Disobedience in the Military.Jessica Wolfendale - 2009 - Journal of Military Ethics 8 (2):127-140.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • When May We Kill Government Agents? In Defense of Moral Parity.Jason Brennan - 2016 - Social Philosophy and Policy 32 (2):40-61.
    :This essay argues for what may be called the parity thesis: Whenever it would be morally permissible to kill a civilian in self-defense or in defense of others against that civilian's unjust acts, it would also be permissible to kill government officials, including police officers, prison officers, generals, lawmakers, and even chief executives. I argue that in realistic circumstances, violent resistance to state injustice is permissible, even and perhaps especially in reasonably just democratic regimes. When civilians see officials about to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Internecine War Killings.Cécile Fabre - 2012 - Utilitas 24 (2):214-236.
    In his recent book Killing in War, McMahan develops a powerful argument for the view that soldiers on opposite sides of a conflict are not morally on a par once the war has started: whether they have the right to kill depends on the justness of their war. In line with just war theory in general, McMahan scrutinizes the ethics of killing the enemy. In this article, I accept McMahan's account, but bring it to bear on the entirely neglected, but (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • On Enforcing Unjust Laws in a Just Society.Jake Monaghan - 2018 - Philosophical Quarterly 68 (273):758-778.
    Legitimate political institutions sometimes produce clearly unjust laws. It is widely recognized, especially in the context of war, that agents of the state may not enforce political decisions that are very seriously unjust or are the decisions of illegitimate governments. But may agents of legitimate states enforce unjust, but not massively unjust, laws? In this paper, I respond to three defences of the view that it is permissible to enforce these unjust laws. Analogues of the Walzerian argument from patriotism, the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Authority, Oaths, Contracts, and Uncertainty in War.Seth Lazar - 2015 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 4 (1):52-58.
    Soldiers sign contracts to obey lawful orders; they also swear oaths to this end. The enlistment contract for the Armed Forces of the United States combines both elements: -/- '9a. My enlistment is more than an employment agreement. As a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, I will be: (1) Required to obey all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties … (4) Required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations.' -/- We standardly think (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Patriotic Conscientious Objection to Military Service.Shlomit Asheri-Shahaf - 2016 - Res Publica 22 (2):155-172.
    The purpose of this paper is to show that conscientious objection to military service is essentially not a dilemma of freedom of conscience versus the duty to obey the law, but above all a dilemma between two conflicting patriotic moral obligations. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates that CO is justifiable on the basis of what is known as moderate patriotism, that is, out of a patriotism which is committed simultaneously to universal and particular values. The paper begins with a critical discussion (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations