Revisionist just war scholarship employs the rigors of analytical philosophy to make arguments about the deep morality of war. Accepting the individual and cosmopolitan are paramount to making sense of war as many revisionists do, this essay looks outside the just war canon to Montaigne—a sixteenth century French humanist hailed for his exploration of the self and cosmopolitan musings—for alternative insights. It explores how Montaigne was read during the Second World War by three intellectuals to make sense of war: Stefan (...) Zweig, Jean Guéhenno, and François Mauriac. While Montaigne’s skepticism and turn to the self as an act of preservation was, in the 1930s, rejected as a strategy to combat rising authoritarianism in Europe by philosophers such as Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt school, the thinkers studied here shed light on Montaigne as a source of active humanism based in reflective action that leads to Resistance. Building on trends in just war thinking that call for paying greater attention to the lived experience of war, the article identifies several psychological and moral processes—the inward turn, the cosmopolitan gaze, casting an existential anchor, and the humanist’s wager—to shed light on the doubt-laden process of making individual moral choices amidst the rising dogmatic forces that war tends to impose. (shrink)

Purpose. The main purpose of this paper is to consider the methodological peculiarities in the formation and interpretation of war and peace, in the context of the spiritual rethinking by humanity and the nature of social phenomena, among which a special place is occupied by the political and legal phenomena of the modern world. This involves solving the following tasks: firstly, to reveal the meaning of modern approaches in understanding the features of religious fundamentalism, and, secondly, to reconstruct the dynamics (...) of transformations in representations of war and peace, in the context of the spiritual practices of the present. Theoretical basis. The author's analysis is based on the systematic reconstruction of modern theoretical models of understanding religious fundamentalism and its connection with the subject of modern anthropological research. The resulted fact that the taxonomy of different types of religious fundamentalism includes more political, legal and economic markers does not provide an answer to the question of what the qualitative influence of the fundamentalist ideas is on the spiritual component of a person's life. Appealing to the problem of religious fundamentalism, in the context of rethinking the phenomena of war and peace, is associated with the actualization of these phenomena in the communicational, media and ideological spheres. That is why, in the context of this analysis, we take into account the main modern approaches in the provisions of religious traditions. These articulate the problems of threat to the global world in the context of actualization and return of the religious factor into the everyday life of a person, including through politics. Originality. The author proves that when analyzing the religious aspect in the reinterpretation of ideas about war and peace, it is necessary to consider, as a doctrinal component, certain types of religious belief doctrines, as well as the individual psychological peculiarities of man. These peculiarities, which are manifested in different types of beliefs, can be verified by the clues in the analysis of religious practices, which represent the meaningful components of the religious doctrine. Conclusions. The reasons for forming ideas about war and peace in theistic religions are a number of provisions related to the nature of the world and of man. They are the result of the manifestation of the act of the Supernatural Essence. In the tradition of rethinking the vocation of man in the context of fundamentalist discourse, these ideas acquire the status of spiritually determined and politically achievable goals. These are conceived in connection with the establishment of the Divine Plan, and they overcome the gap between the material world and the ideal world order. (shrink)

How do civilians react to being harmed in war? Existing studies argue that civilian casualties are strategically costly because civilian populations punish a belligerent who kills civilians and support the latter's opponent. Relying on eighty-seven semi-structured interviews with victims of coalition attacks in Afghanistan, this article shows that moral principles inform civilians’ attitudes toward their own harming. Their attitudes may therefore vary with the perceived circumstances of an attack. Civilians’ perception of harm as unintended and necessary, in accordance with the (...) moral principles of distinction and necessity, was associated with narratives that cast an attack as relatively more legitimate and with a partial or full release of the coalition from blame. The principle of proportionality, which requires that civilian casualties are caused in pursuit of a legitimate war aim, informed their abstract attitudes toward civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Two rules of international law, which accord with the moral principles of distinction and necessity, were reflected in the civilians’ attitudes. The legal rule of proportionality, which diverges from the namesake moral principle, failed to resonate with the civilians. The article explores whether compliance with the legal rules of distinction and necessity can contribute to mitigating the strategic costs of civilian casualties. (shrink)