Results for 'War'

814 found
Order:
  1. The Future of War: The Ethical Potential of Leaving War to Lethal Autonomous Weapons.Steven Umbrello, Phil Torres & Angelo F. De Bellis - 2020 - AI and Society 35 (1):273-282.
    Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) are robotic weapons systems, primarily of value to the military, that could engage in offensive or defensive actions without human intervention. This paper (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2. Just War and RobotsKillings.Thomas W. Simpson & Vincent C. Müller - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 66 (263):302-22.
    May lethal autonomous weapons systems—‘killer robots ’—be used in war? The majority of writers argue against their use, and those who have argued in favour have (...)done so on a consequentialist basis. We defend the moral permissibility of killer robots, but on the basis of the non-aggregative structure of right assumed by Just War theory. This is necessary because the most important argument against killer robots, the responsibility trilemma proposed by Rob Sparrow, makes the same assumptions. We show that the crucial moral question is not one of responsibility. Rather, it is whether the technology can satisfy the requirements of fairness in the re-distribution of risk. Not only is this possible in principle, but some killer robots will actually satisfy these requirements. An implication of our argument is that there is a public responsibility to regulate killer robotsdesign and manufacture. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  3. War and Poverty.Kieran Oberman - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (1):197-217.
    Because the poorest people tend to die from easily preventable diseases, addressing poverty is a relatively cheap way to save lives. War, by contrast, is extremely expensive. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  4. Civil War and Revolution.Jonathan Parry - 2018 - In Seth Lazar & Helen Frowe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford, UK:
    The vast majority of work on the ethics of war focuses on traditional wars between states. In this chapter, I aim to show that this is an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  5. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  6. War and Murder.G. E. M. Anscombe - unknown
    Two attitudes are possible: one, that the world is an absolute jungle and that the exercise of coercive power by rulers is only a manifestation of this; (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  7. Unjust War and a Soldier's Moral Dilemma.Jeff Montrose - 2013 - Journal of Military Ethics 12 (4):325-340.
    This paper explores the central question of why soldiers in democratic societies might decide to fight in wars that they may have reason to believe are objectively (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  8.  63
    War Without Virtue?Robert Sparrow - 2013 - In Bradley Jay Strawser (ed.), Killing By Remote Control. Oxford University Press. pp. 84-105.
    A number of recent and influential accounts of military ethics have argued that there exists a distinctiverole moralityfor members of the armed servicesawarrior (...)code.” Agood warrioris a person who cultivates and exercises themartialorwarriorvirtues. By transforming combat into adesk jobthat can be conducted from the safety of the home territory of advanced industrial powers without need for physical strength or martial valour, long-range robotic weapons, such as thePredatorandReaperdrones fielded by the United States, call the relevance of themartial virtuesinto question. This chapter investigates the implications of these developments for conceptions of military virtue and, consequently, for the future of war. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  9. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  10. Honor War Theory: Romance or Reality?Daniel Demetriou - 2013 - Philosophical Papers 42 (3):285 - 313.
    Just War Theory (JWT) replaced an older "warrior code," an approach to war that remains poorly understood and dismissively treated in the philosophical literature. This paper (...) builds on recent work on honor to address these deficiencies. By providing a clear, systematic exposition of "Honor War Theory" (HWT), we can make sense of paradigm instances of warrior psychology and behavior, and understand the warrior code as the martial expression of a broader honor-based ethos that conceives of obligation in terms of fair competition for prestige. Far from being a romantic and outmoded approach to war, HWT accounts for current conflicts and predicts moral intuitions that JWT either rejects or cannot comfortably accommodate. So although it is not recommended as a replacement for JWT, there is good reason think that a fully mature, realistic, and yet properly normative theory of war ethics will incorporate a variety of insights from HWT. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11. Preventive Wars, Just War Principles, and the United Nations.John W. Lango - 2005 - The Journal of Ethics 9 (1-2):247-268.
    This paper explores the question of whether the United Nations should engage in preventive military actions. Correlatively, it asks whether UN preventive military actions could satisfy just (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12.  63
    The Ruins of War.Elizabeth Scarbrough - 2020 - In Jeanette Bicknell, Jennifer Judkins & Carolyn Korsmeyer (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Ruins, Monuments, and Memorials. New York and London: pp. 228-240.
    Ruins are evocative structures, and we value them in different ways for the various things they mean to us. Ruins can be aesthetically appreciated, but they are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13. War and Self-Defense.Christopher Woodard - 2005 - Mind 114 (454):453-457.
    A review of David Rodin's Book, War and Self-Defense.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  14. Unjust Wars Worth Fighting For.Victor Tadros - 2016 - Journal of Practical Ethics 4 (1).
    I argue that people are sometimes justified in participating in unjust wars. I consider a range of reasons why war might be unjust, including the cause which (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  15. Complicitous Liability in War.Saba Bazargan - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (1):177-195.
    Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-based account of killing in warfare. On this account, a combatant is (...)morally liable to be killed only if doing so is an effective means of reducing or eliminating an unjust threat to which that combatant is contributing. Since combatants fighting for a just cause generally do not contribute to unjust threats, they are not morally liable to be killed; thus MEC is mistaken. The problem, however, is that many unjust combatants contribute very little to the war in which they participateoften no more than the typical civilian. Thus either the typical civilian is morally liable to be killed, or many unjust combatants are not morally liable to be killed. That is, the liability based account seems to force us to choose between a version of pacifism, and total war. Seth Lazar has called thisThe Responsibility Dilemma”. But I will argue that we can salvage a liability-based account of warone which rejects MECby grounding the moral liability of unjust combatants not only in their individual contributions but also in their complicit participation in that war. On this view, all enlistees, regardless of the degree to which they contribute to an unjust war, are complicitously liable to be killed if it is necessary to avert an unjust threat posed by their side. This collectivized liability based account I develop avoids the Responsibility Dilemma unlike individualized liability-based accounts of the sort developed by McMahan. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  16. Defensive Wars and the Reprisal Dilemma.Saba Bazargan - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (3):583-601.
    I address a foundational problem with accounts of the morality of war that are derived from the Just War Tradition. Such accounts problematically focus onthe moment (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17.  74
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  18. Saving Lives or Saving Stones?” The Ethics of Cultural Heritage Protection in War.Erich Hatala Matthes - 2018 - Public Affairs Quarterly 32 (1):67-84.
    In discussion surrounding the destruction of cultural heritage in armed conflict, one often hears two important claims in support of intervention to safeguard heritage. The first is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19. Moving Past the Systematics Wars.Beckett Sterner & Scott Lidgard - 2018 - Journal of the History of Biology 51 (1):31-67.
    It is time to escape the constraints of the Systematics Wars narrative and pursue new questions that are better positioned to establish the relevance of the field (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  20. Racial Justice Requires Ending the War on Drugs.Brian D. Earp, Jonathan Lewis & Carl L. Hart - 2021 - American Journal of Bioethics 21 (4):4-19.
    Historically, laws and policies to criminalize drug use or possession were rooted in explicit racism, and they continue to wreak havoc on certain racialized communities. We are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  21.  7
    Ethics of War and Ethics in War.Jovan Babic - 2019 - Conatus 4 (1):9.
    The paper examines the justification of warfare. The main thesis is that war is very difficult to justify, and justification by invokingjusticeis not the way (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  22. Weighing Lives in War- Foreign Vs. Domestic.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2018 - In Larry May (ed.), Cambridge Handbook on the Just War. pp. 186-198.
    I argue that the lives of domestic and enemy civilians should not receive equal weight in our proportionality calculations. Rather, the lives of enemy civilians ought to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23. The Responsibility Dilemma for Killing in War: A Review Essay.Seth Lazar - 2010 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (2):180-213.
    Killing in War presents the Moral Equality of Combatants with serious, and in my view insurmountable problems. Absent some novel defense, this thesis is now very difficult (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   41 citations  
  24. What Is WarAnd Can a Lone Individual Wage One?Uwe Steinhoff - 2009 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1):133-150.
    Practically all modern definitions of war rule out that individuals can wage war. They conceive of war as a certain kind of conflict between groups. In fact, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  25. Warring Tautologies: Moral Dissent From a Cognitivist Perspective.Matthias Kiesselbach - 2009 - Ethic@ - An International Journal for Moral Philosophy 8 (1):125-145.
    It is commonly thought that the prevalence of moral dissent poses a problem for the moral cognitivist, forcing her to diagnose either a lot of misunderstanding, or (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. Associative Duties and the Ethics of Killing in War.Seth Lazar - 2013 - Journal of Practical Ethics 1 (1):3-48.
    this paper advances a novel account of part of what justifies killing in war, grounded in the duties we owe to our loved ones to protect them (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  27. What's A Just War Theorist?Aleksandar Jokic - 2012 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 4 (2):91-114.
    The article provides an account of the unlikely revival of the medieval Just War Theory, due in large part to the efforts of Michael Walzer. Its purpose (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  28. Necessity in Self-Defense and War.Seth Lazar - 2012 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 40 (1):3-44.
    It is generally agreed that using lethal or otherwise serious force in self-defense is justified only when three conditions are satisfied: first, there are some grounds (...)for the defender to give priority to his own interests over those of the attacker (whether because the attacker has lost the protection of his right to life, for example, or because of the defenders prerogative to prefer himself to others); second, the harm used is proportionate to the threat thereby averted; third, the harm is necessary to avert that threat. The first and second conditions have been exhaustively discussed, but the third has been oddly neglected. Meanwhile a prominent school of thought has arisen, in the ethics of war, which seeks to ground the justification of killing in war in principles of individual self-defense. They too have failed to offer any substantive analysis of necessity, while at the same time appealing to it when it suits them to do so. In this paper, I attempt a detailed analysis of the necessity constraint on defensive force, and explore the implications of that analysis for the attempt to transpose principles of individual self-defense into the context of warfare. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  29.  45
    Game Theory Modeling for the Cold War on Both Sides of the Iron Curtain.Harald Hagemann, Vadim Kufenko & Danila Raskov - 2016 - History of the Human Sciences 29 (4-5):99-124.
    The bi-polar confrontation between the Soviet Union and the USA involved many leading game theorists from both sides of the Iron Curtain: Oskar Morgenstern, John von (...)Neumann, Michael Intriligator, John Nash, Thomas Schelling and Steven Brams from the United States and Nikolay Vorobev, Leon A. Petrosyan, Elena B. Yanovskaya and Olga N. Bondareva from the Soviet Union. The formalization of game theory took place prior to the Cold War but the geopolitical confrontation hastened and shaped its evolution. In our article we outline four similarities and differences between Western GT and Soviet GT: 1) the Iron Curtain resulted in a lagged evolution of GT in the Soviet Union; 2) Soviet GT focused more on operations research and issues of centralized planning; 3) the contemporary Western view on Soviet GT was biased and Soviet contributions, including works on dynamic stability, non-emptiness of the core and many refinements, suggest that Soviet GT was able to catch up to the Western level relatively fast; 4) international conferences, including Vilnius, 1971, fostered interaction between Soviet game theorists and their Western colleagues. In general, we consider the Cold War to be a positive environment for GT in the West and in the Soviet Union. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  30.  28
    The Institutional Stabilization of Philosophy of Science and its Withdrawal From Social Concerns After the Second World War.Fons Dewulf - forthcoming - British Journal for the History of Philosophy:1-19.
    In this paper, I criticize the thesis that value-laden approaches in American philosophy of science were marginalized in the 1960s through the editorial policy at Philosophy (...)of Science and funding practices at the National Science Foundation. I argue that there is no available evidence of any normative restriction on philosophy of science as a domain of inquiry which excluded research on the relation between science and society. Instead, I claim that the absence of any exemplary, professional philosopher who discussed the relation between science and society sufficed to narrow the focus of philosophers of science, given the institutional stabilization of the domain within professional philosophy from 1959 onwards. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  31. The Cognitive Geometry of War.Barry Smith - 1997 - In Peter Koller & Klaus Puhl (eds.), Current Issues in Political Philosophy: Justice in Society and World Order. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky. pp. 394--403.
    When national borders in the modern sense first began to be established in early modern Europe, non-contiguous and perforated nations were a commonplace. According to the (...)conception of the shapes of nations that is currently preferred, however, nations must conform to the topological model of circularity; their borders must guarantee contiguity and simple connectedness, and such borders must as far as possible conform to existing topographical features on the ground. The striving to conform to this model can be seen at work today in Quebec and in Ireland, it underpins much of the rhetoric of the P.L.O., and was certainly to some degree involved as a motivating factor in much of the ethnic cleansing which took place in Bosnia in recent times. The question to be addressed in what follows is: to what extent could inter-group disputes be more peacefully resolved, and ethnic cleansing avoided, if political leaders, diplomats and others involved in the resolution of such disputes could be brought to accept weaker geometrical constraints on the shapes of nations? A number of associated questions then present themselves: What sorts of administrative and logistical problems have been encountered by existing non contiguous nations and by perforated nations, and by other nations deviating in different ways from the received geometrical ideal? To what degree is the desire for continuity and simple connectedness a rational desire, and to what degree does it rest on species of political rhetoric which might be countered by, for example, philosophical argument? These and a series of related questions will form the subject- matter of the present essay. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  32. The Disastrous War Against Terrorism: Violence Versus Enlightenment.Nicholas Maxwell - 2007 - In Albert W. Merkidze (ed.), Terrorism Issues: Threat Assessment , Consequences and Prevention.
    In combating international terrorism, it is important to observe some basic principles, such as that international law must be complied with, care should be taken that one (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33. Standards of Risk in War and Civil Life.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2017 - In Florian Demont-Biaggi (ed.), The Nature of Peace and the Morality of Armed Conflict. Palgrave.
    Though the duties of care owed toward innocents in war and in civil life are at the bottom univocally determined by the same ethical principles, Bazargan-Forward (...)argues that those very principles will yield in these two contexts differentin-practiceduties. Furthermore, the duty of care we owe toward our own innocents is less stringent than the duty of care we owe toward foreign innocents in war. This is because risks associated with civil life but not war (a) often increase the expected welfare of the individuals upon whom the risk is imposed, (b) are often imposed with consent, and (c) are often imposed reciprocally. The conclusionthat we have a pro tanto reason for adopting a more stringent standard of risk imposition toward foreign innocents in warhas implications for not only what standards of risk we should adopt in war, but also how we should weigh domestic versus foreign civilian lives. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34. Abortion, Forced Labor, and War.Laura Purdy - 1996 - In Reproducing Persons: Issues in Feminist Bioethics. Cornell University Press.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  35. Evaluating the Revisionist Critique of Just War Theory.Seth Lazar - 2017 - Daedalus 146 (1):113-124.
    Modern analytical just war theory starts with Michael Walzer's defense of key tenets of the laws of war in his Just and Unjust Wars. Walzer advocates (...)noncombatant immunity, proportionality, and combatant equality: combatants in war must target only combatants; unintentional harms that they inflict on noncombatants must be proportionate to the military objective secured; and combatants who abide by these principles fight permissibly, regardless of their aims. In recent years, the revisionist school of just war theory, led by Jeff McMahan, has radically undermined Walzer's defense of these principles. This essay situates Walzer's and the revisionistsarguments, before illustrating the disturbing vision of the morality of war that results from revisionist premises. It concludes by showing how broadly Walzerian conclusions can be defended using more reliable foundations. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  36. The Moral Equality of Modern Combatants and the Myth of Justified War.Uwe Steinhoff - 2012 - Theoretical and Applied Ethics 1 (4):35-44.
    In the tradition of just war theory two assumptions have been taken pretty much for granted: first, that there are quite a lot of justified wars, and (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  37. The Morality and Law of War.Seth Lazar - 2012 - In Andrei Marmor (ed.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Law. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. pp. 364-379.
    The revisionist critique of conventional just war theory has undoubtedly scored some important victories. Walzers elegantly unified defense of combatant legal equality and noncombatant immunity has (...)been seriously undermined. This critical success has not, however, been matched by positive arguments, which when applied to the messy reality of war would deprive states and soldiers of the permission to fight wars that are plausibly thought to be justified. The appeal to law that is sought to resolve this objection by casting it as a practical concern, a pragmatic worry about implementation, which while germane to debates over the laws of war, need not undermine our convictions in the fundamental principles the revisionists advocate. This response is inadequate. Revisionists have not shown that soldiers should obey the laws of war, in practice, when they conflict with their other moral reasonsour worries about application remain intact. Moreover, a theory of war that offers only an account of the laws of war, and a set of fundamental principles developed in abstraction from feasibility constraints, is radically incomplete. We need to know how to apply those fundamental principles, and whether, when applied, they lead to defensible conclusions. Only two options seem to remain. Perhaps the revisionistsarguments for their chosen fundamental principles are sufficiently compelling that we should stick with them, and accept their troubling conclusionsin other words, accept pacifism. Alternatively, we need to revise our fundamental principles, so that when applied they yield conclusions that we can more confidently endorse. -/- Though it does not save the revisionist view from the responsibility dilemma and cognate objections, the appeal to law does raise an important, and previously inadequately theorized, questionor, rather, resurrects a neglected topic, discussed in depth by historical just war theorists such as Grotius and Vattel. There are good grounds for distinguishing the laws of war from the morality of war, and for adjusting the former to accommodate predictable noncompliance, that should not impact on our account of the latter. Nonetheless, I have argued that there are some profound moral insights underlying both combatant legal equality and noncombatant immunity: specifically, we cannot infer from a combatants side having not satisfied jus ad bellum that he may not justifiably use lethal force; and other things equal, it is more wrongful to harm a nonliable noncombatant than to harm a nonliable combatant. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  38. Review Article: Just War Theory and Peace Studies[REVIEW]Edmund F. Byrne - 2009 - Teaching Philosophy 32 (3):297-304.
    Scholarly critiques of the just war tradition have grown in number and sophistication in recent years to the point that available publications now provide the basis for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  39. Taking War Seriously.Charles Blattberg - 2019 - Philosophy 94 (1):139-60.
    Just war theoryas advanced by Michael Walzer, among othersfails to take war seriously enough. This is because it proposes that we regulate war with (...)systematic rules that are comparable to those of a game. Three types of claims are advanced. The first is phenomenological: that the theory's abstract nature interferes with our judgment of what is, and should be, going on. The second is meta-ethical: that the theory's rules are not, in fact, systematic after all, there being inherent contradictions between them. And the third is practical: that by getting people to view war as like a game, the theory promotes itsaestheticization’ (play being a central mode of the aesthetic) such that those who fight are encouraged to act in dangerous ways. And war, it goes without saying, is already dangerous enough. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. Gnostic Wars the Cold War in the Context of a History of Western Spirituality.Stefan Rossbach - 1999
    In this exposition of important and yet often neglected developments in the history of Western spirituality, Stefan Rossbach reminds us of the philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. War & Ethics: A New Just War Theory[REVIEW]Joshua Finnell - 2008 - Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought 3 (1).
    In War & Ethics, Nicholas Fotion undertakes three main tasks. The first is critical: to analyzeJust War Theory’ (JWT) in the evolving context of modern warfare between (...) nations and non-nation groups, using various case studies to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. The second task is modification: to construct a new Just War Theory to incorporate wars between nations (JWT-Regular) and wars between nations and non-nation groups (JWT-Irregular). The third and final task is defensive: to show that Just War Theory in general, and the twin theory in particular, are useful tools in assessing when a war is just. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Just War, CitizensResponsibility, and Public Intellectuals.Christian Nadeau - forthcoming - Revue Internationale de Philosophie.
    To what extent do the moral principles of just war theory lend themselves to providing an account of the moral and political responsibility of citizens in general, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. War and Moral Consistency.Jonathan Parry - 2020 - In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (5th Edition). pp. 692-703.
    Provides an opinionated overview of some recent debates within the ethics of war.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44. The Third Man: Comparative Analysis of a Science Autobiography and a Cinema Classic as Windows Into Post-War Life Sciences Research.Hub Zwart - 2015 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 37 (4):382-412.
    In 2003, biophysicist and Nobel Laureate Maurice Wilkins published his autobiography entitled The Third Man. In the preface, he diffidently points out that the title was chosen (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  45. The Evolution-Creation Wars: Why Teaching More Science Just is Not Enough.Massimo Pigliucci - 2007 - McGill Journal of Education 42 (2):285-306.
    The creation-evolutioncontroversyhas been with us for more than a century. Here I argue that merely teaching more science will probably not improve the situation; (...)we need to understand the controversy as part of a broader problem with public acceptance of pseudoscience, and respond by teaching how science works as a method. Critical thinking is difficult to teach, but educators can rely on increasing evidence from neurobiology about how the brain learns, or fails to. (shrink)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  46. Defining War.Jessica Wolfendale - 2017 - In Michael Gross & Tamar Meisels (eds.), Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. pp. 16-32.
    In international law and just war theory, war is treated as normatively and legally unique. In the context of international law, wars special status gives rise (...)to a specific set of belligerent rights and duties, as well as a complex set of laws related to, among other things, the status of civilians, prisoners of war, trade and economic relationships, and humanitarian aid. In particular, belligerents are permitted to derogate from certain human rights obligations and to use lethal force in a far more permissive manner than is the case in other kinds of conflicts and in domestic law enforcement operations. Given wars unique status, the task of defining war requires not just identifying the empirical features that are characteristic of war but explaining and justifying wars special legal and moral status. In this chapter, I propose a definition of war that captures wars unique features and can offer insights into when and how some forms of unarmed conflict could count as wars. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  58
    AMost AstonishingCircumstance: The Survival of Jewish POWs in German War Captivity During the Second World War.Johanna Jacques - 2021 - Social and Legal Studies 30 (3):362-383.
    During the Second World War, more than 60,000 Jewish members of the American, British and French armed forces became prisoners of war in Germany. Against all (...)expectations, these prisoners were treated in accordance with the 1929 Geneva Convention, and the majority made it home alive. This article seeks to explain this most astonishing circumstance. It begins by collating the references to the experiences of Western Jewish POWs from the historical literature to provide a hitherto-unseen overview of their treatment in captivity. It then asks what made their protection from persecution possible. To this end, it explores Germanys wider motivations for its selective application of the Geneva Convention and highlights the role that military identity played in making its application seem necessary for all POWs from the Western front, including Jewish POWs. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48. From Nomos to Hegung: Sovereignty and the Laws of War in Schmitts International Order.Johanna Jacques - 2015 - The Modern Law Review 78 (3):411-430.
    Carl Schmitt's notion of nomos is commonly regarded as the international equivalent to the national sovereign's decision on the exception. But can concrete spatial order alone (...) turn a constellation of forces into an international order? This article looks at Schmitt's work The Nomos of the Earth and proposes that it is the process of bracketing war called Hegung which takes the place of the sovereign in the international order Schmitt describes. Beginning from an analysis of nomos, the ordering function of the presocratic concept moira is explored. It is argued that the process of Hegung, like moira, does not just achieve the containment of war, but constitutes the condition of possibility for plural order. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  49. Just War and Non-Combatants in the Private Military Industry.Paul Richard Daniels - 2015 - Journal of Military Ethics 14 (2):146-161.
    I argue that, according to Just War Theory, those who work as administrative personnel in the private military industry can be permissibly harmed while at work by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  9
    War? Another Possible Relation Between Yugoslavia and its Football.Gustavo Ruiz da Silva - 2020 - Filosofia E Educação 11 (3):494-508.
    This article aims to indicate another possible comprehension of war and its relations in the Yugoslavian region. Focused on the construction of national identity, this paper uses (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 814