Since it appeared in 1971, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice has become a classic. The author has now revised the original edition to clear up a number of difficulties he and others have found in the original book. Rawls aims to express an essential part of the common core of the democratic tradition--justice as fairness--and to provide an alternative to utilitarianism, which had dominated the Anglo-Saxon tradition of political thought since the nineteenth century. Rawls substitutes the ideal of the (...) social contract as a more satisfactory account of the basic rights and liberties of citizens as free and equal persons. "Each person," writes Rawls, "possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override." Advancing the ideas of Rousseau, Kant, Emerson, and Lincoln, Rawls's theory is as powerful today as it was when first published. (shrink)

Though the Revised Edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1999, is the definitive statement of Rawlsıs view, so much of the extensive literature on ...

Can a soldier be held responsible for fighting in a war that is illegal or unjust? The chapters in the book both challenge and defend many deeply held assumptions: about the liability of soldiers for crimes of aggression, about the nature and justifiability of terrorism, about the relationship between law and morality.

The book will primarily be of interest to military officers and others directly involved in ethics education in the military, as well as to philosophers and ...

In recent years, a number of authors have called for a return to an ethic of honour as a means of imparting virtue to military personnel. Mark Osiel, for instance, argues that ‘martial honor can be...

Whether refusal is an act of civil disobedience meant to challenge the state politically as a form of protest, or an action which reflects a deep moral objection to the policies of the state, selective conscientious objection presents the state and its citizens with a number of difficult legal and moral challenges. Appeals to authority outside of the state, whether religious or secular, influence both citizenship and the behavior of the government itself. As Israel raises funds to defend IDF officers (...) from charges of human rights violations in the United Kingdom, it may find itself in need of a better defense against those citizens hesitant to be placed in harm's way, militarily and legally. At some point in the future it may find itself unable to field soldiers for whom service in the Occupied Territories is prohibited by inviolable secular or religious law. And for those who will continue to argue that they cannot abide service in an army of occupation, an expression sounded in 1968 by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the moral crisis of an individual conscience rent between obligations to the state and obligations to self, will linger along with the pain of a conscience nurtured and then rejected by this democratic society. (shrink)

Throughout the 3-year war in Lebanon (1982-1985) and throughout the 7 years of the first Intifada (1987-1994), about 170 objecting reservists chose to adopt an unconventional mode of moral resolution for their dilemma about service in the conflict: they disobeyed the order to serve in the war zone when their unit was called up. They argued that such service would contradict the dictates of their conscience. At the outset, the intention of most of these reservists was to comply with orders (...) for general military service. They asked to serve within the Green Line. When their request was overruled and they continued to disregard their call-up, they were charged with a disciplinary offense (Israel has no legal provision for selective conscientious objection). They subsequently were tried by court-martial and were sentenced to 14-35 days in military prison, some of them more than once when they refused additional drafts. Their major conscientious claims revolve around two major constraints: resisting the unfair physical load of military reserve service and resisting the obligation to face morally no-win situations. I would further argue that even though most of the public and the senior army echelons were familiar with these two types of moral voices, they preferred to remove the conscientious soldiers from their posts, or to ignore the claims themselves. (shrink)