Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Indispensable Mental Element of Justification and the Failure of Purely Objectivist (Mostly “Revisionist”) Just War Theories.Uwe Steinhoff - 2020 - Zeitschrift Für Ethik Und Moralphilosophie (1):51-67.
    The “right intention” requirement, in the form of a requirement that the agent must have a justified true belief that the mind-independent conditions of the justification to use force are fulfilled, is not an additional criterion, but one that constrains the interpretation of the other criteria. Without it, the only possible interpretation of the mind-independent criteria is purely objectivist, that is, purely fact-relative. Pure objectivism condemns self-defense and just war theory to irrelevance since it cannot provide proper action guidance: it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Weaponized Noncombatants, Child Soldiers, and Targeting Innocents.Oren J. Litwin - 2020 - Journal of Military Ethics 19 (1):56-68.
    This article presents a novel theory of noncombatant immunity that can serve as a practical guide for soldiers in the field. It improves on existing theories by justifying why and when an innocent...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Distributive Justice for Aggressors.Patrick Tomlin - forthcoming - Law and Philosophy:1-29.
    The individualist nature of much contemporary just war theory means that we often discuss cases with single attackers. But even if war is best understood in this individualist way, in war combatants often have to make decisions about how to distribute harms among a plurality of aggressors: they must decide whom and how many to harm, and how much to harm them. In this paper, I look at simultaneous multiple aggressor cases in which more than one distribution of harm among (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Sharing the Costs of Fighting Justly.Sara Van Goozen - 2020 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23 (2):233-253.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Self-Defense, Forfeiture and Necessity.David Alm - 2019 - Philosophical Papers 48 (3):335-358.
    The thesis of this paper is that it is possible to explain why a culpable aggressor forfeits his right not to suffer the harm necessary to prevent his aggression if a killer forfeits his right to life. I argue that this strategy accounts also for the necessity restriction on self-defense. I respond to several objections, including the worry that it makes no sense to attempt a derivation of the relatively uncontroversial from the highly controversial.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • In Dubious Battle: Uncertainty and the Ethics of Killing.Seth Lazar - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (4):859-883.
    How should deontologists concerned with the ethics of killing apply their moral theory when we don’t know all the facts relevant to the permissibility of our action? Though the stakes couldn’t be higher, and uncertainty is endemic where killing is concerned, few deontologists have an answer to this question. In this paper I canvass two possibilities: that we should apply a threshold standard, equivalent to the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard applied for criminal punishment; and that we should fit our (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • A New Societal Self-Defense Theory of Punishment—The Rights-Protection Theory.Hsin-Wen Lee - 2018 - Philosophia 46 (2):337-353.
    In this paper, I propose a new self-defense theory of punishment, the rights-protection theory. By appealing to the interest theory of right, I show that what we call “the right of self-defense” is actually composed of the right to protect our basic rights. The right of self-defense is not a single, self-standing right but a group of derivative rights justified by their contribution to the protection of the core, basic rights. Thus, these rights of self-defense are both justified and constrained (...)
    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  
  • Sharing the Costs of Fighting Justly.Sara Van Goozen - 2018 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy:1-21.
    Combatants who attempt to obey the laws of war often have to take considerable risks in order to effectively discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate targets. Sometimes this task is made even more complicated by systemic factors which influence their ability to discriminate effectively without unduly risking their lives or the mission. If they fail to do so, civilians often pay the price. In this paper, I argue that to the extent that non-combatants benefit from the attempt to fight justly, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Risky Killing.Seth Lazar - forthcoming - New Content is Available for Journal of Moral Philosophy.
    _ Source: _Page Count 26 I argue that riskier killings of innocent people are, other things equal, objectively worse than less risky killings. I ground these views in considerations of disrespect and security. Killing someone more riskily shows greater disrespect for him by more grievously undervaluing his standing and interests, and more seriously undermines his security by exposing a disposition to harm him across all counterfactual scenarios in which the probability of killing an innocent person is that high or less. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Just War Theory and the Last of Last Resort.Eamon Aloyo - 2015 - Ethics and International Affairs 29 (2):187-201.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Killing Innocent People.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Noûs 52 (3):645-666.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Bluff: The Power of Insincere Actions.Kimberly Kessler Ferzan - 2017 - Legal Theory 23 (3):168-202.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • 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  
  • 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Limited Role of the Doctrine of the Double Effect in the Just War Theory.Eduardo Rivera-López - 2017 - Ethics and Global Politics 10 (1):117-139.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark