Why We Shouldn’t Reject Conflicts: A Critique of Tadros
Res Publica 20 (3):315-322 (2014)
Abstract
Victor Tadros thinks the idea that in a conflict both sides may permissibly use force should (typically) be rejected. Thus, he thinks that two shipwrecked persons should not fight for the only available flotsam (which can only carry one person) but instead toss a coin, and that a bomber justifiably attacking an ammunitions factory must not be counterattacked by the innocent bystanders he endangers. I shall argue that Tadros’s claim rests on unwarranted assumptions and is also mistaken in the light of the moral reasoning that he himself offers in support of his ‘means principle’
Keywords
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
STEWWS
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
View upload history

What We Owe to Each Other.Scanlon, Thomas
The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law.Tadros, Victor
The Basis of Moral Liability to Defensive Killing.McMahan, Jeff
The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction.Frowe, Helen
View all 7 references / Add more references

The Liability of Justified Attackers.Steinhoff, Uwe
Wild Goose Chase: Still No Rationales for the Doctrine of Double Effect and Related Principles.Steinhoff, Uwe
When May Soldiers Participate in War?Steinhoff, Uwe
Added to PP index
2014-01-19
Total views
298 ( #12,395 of 44,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
58 ( #11,999 of 44,318 )
2014-01-19
Total views
298 ( #12,395 of 44,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
58 ( #11,999 of 44,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.