Results for 'combatants'

39 found
Order:
  1. Rights, Liability, and the Moral Equality of Combatants.Uwe Steinhoff - 2012 - The Journal of Ethics 16 (4):339-366.
    According to the dominant position in the just war tradition from Augustine to Anscombe and beyond, there is no "moral equality of combatants." That is, on the traditional view the combatants participating in a justified war may kill their enemy combatants participating in an unjustified war - but not vice versa (barring certain qualifications). I shall argue here, however, that in the large number of wars (and in practically all modern wars) where the combatants on the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  2. 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 second, that there is a moral inequality of combatants, that is, that combatants participating in a justified war may kill their enemy combatants participating in an unjustified war but not vice versa. I will argue that the first assumption is wrong and that therefore the second assumption is virtually irrelevant for (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3. The Moral Equality of Combatants.Barry Christian & Christie Lars - 2017 - In Seth Lazar & Helen Frowe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants holds that combatants on either side of a war have equal moral status, even if one side is fighting a just war while the other is not. This chapter examines arguments that have been offered for and against this doctrine, including the collectivist position famously articulated by Walzer and McMahan’s influential individualist critique. We also explore collectivist positions that have rejected the moral equality doctrine and arguments that some individualists have (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. McMahan, Symmetrical Defense and the Moral Equality of Combatants.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    McMahan’s own example of a symmetrical defense case, namely his tactical bomber example, opens the door wide open for soldiers to defend their fellow-citizens (on grounds of their special obligations towards them) even if as part of this defense they target non-liable soldiers. So the soldiers on both sides would be permitted to kill each other and, given how McMahan defines “justification,” they would also be justified in doing so and hence not be liable. Thus, we arrive, against McMahan’s intentions, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. To Be Killed or Not to Be Killed? On McMahan’s Failure to Draw a Line Between Combatants and Civilians.Uwe Steinhoff - manuscript
    In a recent paper, McMahan argues that his ‘Responsibility Account’, according to which ‘the criterion of liability to attack in war is moral responsibility for an objectively unjustified threat of harm’, can meet the challenge of explaining why most combatants on the unjustified side of a war are liable to attack while most civilians (even on the unjustified side) are not. It should be added, however, that in the light of his rejection of the ‘moral equality of combatants’, (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. 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 enemy combatants. That is, for better or worse, a Just War theorist should consider all those who work as administrative personnel in the private military industry either: (i) individuals who may be permissibly restrained with lethal force while at work, or (ii) individuals who may be harmed by permissible attacks against their workplace. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Just Cause, Liability, and the Moral Inequality of Combatants.Gerald Lang - 2012 - Theoretical and Applied Ethics 1 (4):54-60.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  53
    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  
  9. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  10. Reconnoitering Combatant Moral Equality.Roger Wertheimer - 2007 - Journal of Military Ethics 6 (1):60-74.
    Contra Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan, neither classical just war theory nor the contemporary rules of war require or support any notion of combatant moral equality. Nations rightly accept prohibitions against punishing enemy combatants without recognizing any legal or moral right of aggressors to kill. The notion of combatant moral equality has real import only in our interpersonal -- and intrapersonal -- attitudes, since the notion effectively preempts any ground for conscientious objection. Walzer is criticized for over-emphasizing our collective (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  11. The Liability of Justified Attackers.Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):1016-1030.
    McMahan argues that justification defeats liability to defensive attack (which would undermine the thesis of the "moral equality of combatants"). In response, I argue, first, that McMahan’s attempt to burden the contrary claim with counter-intuitive implications fails; second, that McMahan’s own position implies that the innocent civilians do not have a right of self-defense against justified attackers, which neither coheres with his description of the case (the justified bombers infringe the rights of the civilians) nor with his views about (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12. The Moral Singularity of Military Professionalism.Roger Wertheimer - 2010 - In Empowering Our Military Conscience.
    Neither M. Walzer's collectivist conception of the "moral equality" of combatants, nor its antithetical individualist conceptions of responsibility are compatible with the ethos of military professionalism and its conception(s) of the responsibility of military professionals for service in an unjust war.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. The International Rule of Law and Killing in War.Jovana Davidovic - 2012 - Social Theory and Practice 38 (3):531-553.
    In this paper, I suggest that for some proposed solutions to global justice problems, incompatibility with the necessary features of international law is a reason to reject them. I illustrate this by discussing the problem raised by the case of unjust combatants, that is, combatants lacking a just cause for war. I argue that the principle of inequality of combatants, which suggests that we ought to prohibit those without a just cause for war from fighting, is not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  33
    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  
  15. When May Soldiers Participate in War?Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - International Theory 8 (2):262-296.
    I shall argue that in some wars both sides are (as a collective) justified, that is, they can both satisfy valid jus ad bellum requirements. Moreover, in some wars – but not in all – the individual soldiers on the unjustified side (that is, on the side without jus ad bellum) may nevertheless kill soldiers (and also civilians as a side-effect) on the justified side, even if the enemy soldiers always abide by jus in bello constraints. Traditional just war theory (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  16. 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 different “in-practice” duties. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. The Permissibility of Aiding and Abetting Unjust Wars.Saba Bazargan - 2011 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (4):513-529.
    Common sense suggests that if a war is unjust, then there is a strong moral reason not to contribute to it. I argue that this presumption is mistaken. It can be permissible to contribute to an unjust war because, in general, whether it is permissible to perform an act often depends on the alternatives available to the actor. The relevant alternatives available to a government waging a war differ systematically from the relevant alternatives available to individuals in a position to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  18. Ukrainian Students in Spain After World War II.Oleksandr Pronkevych & Olga Shestopal - 2018 - Kyiv-Mohyla Humanities Journal 5:117-132.
    The paper analyzes a book written by Volodymyr Yarymovych, Oleksandr Bilyk, and Mykola Volynskyi, entitled Narys istorii ukrainskoi studentskoi hromady ta Ukrainskykh poselen v Espanii 1946–1996 (An Overview of the History of the Ukrainian Student Community and Ukrainian Settlements in Spain, 1946–1996), which tells about the Ukrainian students who arrived in Madrid in 1946 and formed part of the early Ukrainian Diaspora in Spain. The book proves to be an important source of information, previously unknown to scholars, which describes the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. 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 to sustain. But this success is counterbalanced by the strikingly revisionist implications of McMahan’s account of the underlying morality of killing in war, which forces us into one of two unattractive positions, contingent pacifism, or near-total war. In this article, I have argued that his efforts to mitigate these controversial implications fail. The (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  20. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  64
    Risks, Robots, and the Honorableness of the Military Profession.Peter Olsthoorn - 2019 - In Bernhard Koch (ed.), Chivalrous Combatants? The Meaning of Military Virtue Past and Present. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. pp. 161 - 178.
    1. Introduction 2. What honor is 3. Honor in the military 4. The use of robots and the honorableness of the military profession 5. Conclusion.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. Privacy, Transparency, and Accountability in the NSA’s Bulk Metadata Program.Alan Rubel - 2015 - In Adam D. Moore (ed.), Privacy, Security, and Accountability: Ethics, Law, and Policy. London, UK: pp. 183-202.
    Disputes at the intersection of national security, surveillance, civil liberties, and transparency are nothing new, but they have become a particularly prominent part of public discourse in the years since the attacks on the World Trade Center in September 2001. This is in part due to the dramatic nature of those attacks, in part based on significant legal developments after the attacks (classifying persons as “enemy combatants” outside the scope of traditional Geneva protections, legal memos by White House counsel (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Necessity and Non-Combatant Immunity.Seth Lazar - 2014 - Review of International Studies (Firstview Online) 40 (1):53-76.
    The principle of non-combatant immunity protects non-combatants against intentional attacks in war. It is the most widely endorsed and deeply held moral constraint on the conduct of war. And yet it is difficult to justify. Recent developments in just war theory have undermined the canonical argument in its favour – Michael Walzer's, in Just and Unjust Wars. Some now deny that non-combatant immunity has principled foundations, arguing instead that it is entirely explained by a different principle: that of necessity. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  24. Autonomous Weapons and the Nature of Law and Morality: How Rule-of-Law-Values Require Automation of the Rule of Law.Duncan MacIntosh - 2016 - Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 30 (1):99-117.
    While Autonomous Weapons Systems have obvious military advantages, there are prima facie moral objections to using them. By way of general reply to these objections, I point out similarities between the structure of law and morality on the one hand and of automata on the other. I argue that these, plus the fact that automata can be designed to lack the biases and other failings of humans, require us to automate the formulation, administration, and enforcement of law as much as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25.  81
    Instrumental Authority and Its Challenges: The Case of the Laws of War.Jonathan Parry & Daniel Viehoff - 2019 - Ethics 129 (4):548-575.
    Law and Morality at War offers a broadly instrumentalist defense of the authority of the laws of war: these laws serve combatants by helping them come closer to doing what they have independent moral reason to do. We argue that this form of justification sets too low a bar. An authority’s directives are not binding, on instrumental grounds, if the subject could, within certain limits, adopt an alternative, and superior, means of conforming to morality’s demands. It emerges that Haque’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. Performance-Enhancing Technologies and Moral Responsibility in the Military.Jessica Wolfendale - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2):28 – 38.
    New scientific advances have created previously unheard of possibilities for enhancing combatants' performance. Future war fighters may be smarter, stronger, and braver than ever before. If these technologies are safe, is there any reason to reject their use? In this article, I argue that the use of enhancements is constrained by the importance of maintaining the moral responsibility of military personnel. This is crucial for two reasons: the military's ethical commitments require military personnel to be morally responsible agents, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  27. Deliberative Transformative Moments. A New Concept as Amendment to the Discourse Quality Index.Maria Clara Jaramillo & Jurg Steiner - 2014 - Journal of Public Deliberation 10 (2):1-15.
    Deliberative Transformative Moments (DTM) is a new concept that serves as an amendment to the DQI. With this new concept it is easier to get at the quick give-and-take of discussions of small groups of ordinary citizens. As an illustration, we apply the concept to discussions about the peace process among Colombian ex-combatants, ex-guerrillas and ex-paramilitaries. Specifically, we show how personal stories can transform a discussion from a low to a high level of deliberation and how they can have (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28. Terrorism, Supreme Emergency and Killing the Innocent.Anne Schwenkenbecher - 2009 - Perspectives - The Review of International Affairs 17 (1):105-126.
    Terrorist violence is often condemned for targeting innocents or non-combatants. There are two objections to this line of argument. First, one may doubt that terrorism is necessarily directed against innocents or non-combatants. However, I will focus on the second objection, according to which there may be exceptions from the prohibition against killing the innocent. In my article I will elaborate whether lethal terrorism against innocents can be justified in a supreme emergency. Starting from a critique of Michael Walzer’s (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. “The Truth of Politics in Alain Badiou: ‘There is Only One World.Adriel Trott - 2011 - Parrhesia 12:82-93.
    In recent years, the growing number of persons to whom basic human rights have been explicitly denied—stateless persons, refugees, undocumented workers, sans papiers and unlawful combatants—has evidenced the logic of contemporary nation-state politics. According to this logic, the state defines itself by virtue of what it excludes while what is excluded is given no other recourse than the state for its protection. Hannah Arendt elucidates this logic when she observes that the stateless and the refugee can only be recognized (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30.  52
    What is Distinctive About Terrorism, and What Are the Philosophical Implications?Michael Baur - 2005 - In Timothy Shanahan (ed.), Philosophy 9/11: Thinking About the War on Terrorism. Chicago: Open Court. pp. 3-21.
    On September 11, 2001, Americans were painfully reminded of a truth that for years had been easy to overlook, namely, that terrorism can affect every person in the world – regardless of location, nationality, political conviction, or occupation – and that, in principle, nobody is beyond terrorism’s reach. However, our renewed awareness of the ubiquity of the terrorist threat has been accompanied by wide disagreement and confusion about the moral status of terrorism and how terrorism ought to be confronted. Much (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  31.  74
    Drones and Dirty Hands.Ben Jones & John M. Parrish - 2016 - In Kerstin Fisk & Jennifer Ramos (eds.), Preventive Force: Drones, Targeted Killings, and the Transformation of Contemporary Warfare. New York, USA: New York University Press. pp. 283-312.
    The period known as the “War on Terror” has prompted a revival of interest in the idea of moral dilemmas and the problem of “dirty hands” in public life. Some contend that a policy of targeted killing of terrorist actors is (under specified but not uncommon circumstances) an instance of a dirty-handed moral dilemma – morally required yet morally forbidden, the least evil choice available in the circumstances, but one that nevertheless leaves an indelible moral stain on the character of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. The Guerrilla Strikes Back: A Comment on Yvonne Chiu.Uwe Steinhoff - 2011 - Diametros 30:61-75.
    In a recent article Yvonne Chiu argues that nonuniformed combat is impermissible. However, her argument that by fighting without uniforms nonuniformed guerillas coerce civilians into participating in the armed conflict and thus into surrendering their immunity (their right not to be attacked) fails: there is no coercion, no participation, and no surrendering of immunity. Yet even if this argument of hers were correct, it would still not show that such “coercion” would amount to a rights infringement. Moreover, even if it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  82
    Nanotechnologically Enhanced Combat Systems: The Downside of Invulnerability.Robert Mark Simpson & Robert Sparrow - 2014 - In Bert Gordijn & Anthony Mark Cutter (eds.), In Pursuit of Nanoethics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. pp. 89-103.
    In this paper we examine the ethical implications of emerging Nanotechnologically Enhanced Combat Systems (or 'NECS'). Through a combination of materials innovation and biotechnology, NECS are aimed at making combatants much less vulnerable to munitions that pose a lethal threat to soldiers protected by conventional armor. We argue that increasing technological disparities between forces armed with NECS and those without will exacerbate the ethical problems of asymmetric warfare. This will place pressure on the just war principles of jus in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  34. 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  
  35. Super Soldiers and Technological Asymmetry.Robert Mark Simpson - 2015 - In J. Galliott & M. Lotz (eds.), Super Soldiers: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications. Ashgate: Ashgate. pp. 81-91.
    In this chapter I argue that emerging soldier enhancement technologies have the potential to transform the ethical character of the relationship between combatants, in conflicts between ‘Superpower’ militaries, with the ability to deploy such technologies, and technologically disadvantaged ‘Underdog’ militaries. The reasons for this relate to Paul Kahn’s claims about the paradox of riskless warfare. When an Underdog poses no threat to a Superpower, the standard just war theoretic justifications for the Superpower’s combatants using lethal violence against their (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. The Senses of Terrorism.Mark Rigstad - 2008 - Review Journal of Political Philosophy 6:1-36.
    This articles exposes the methodological errors involved in attempting to operationalize or value-neutralize the concept of 'terrorism.' It defends, instead, an effects-based approach to the taxonomy of 'terrorism' that builds out from a central conceptual connection between the term's negative connotation and a widely shared moral presumption against the killing of innocent non-combatants. Although this approach to the core meaning of 'terrorism' is far from value-neutral, it has a number of virtues to recommend it. First, it has the political (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  37.  90
    Conspiring with the Enemy: The Ethic of Cooperation in Warfare.Yvonne Chiu - 2019 - New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.
    *Winner of the North American Society for Social Philosophy (NASSP) Book Award 2019.* -/- Although military mores have relied primarily on just war theory, the ethic of cooperation in warfare (ECW)—between enemies even as they are trying to kill each other—is as central to the practice of warfare and to conceptualization of its morality. Neither game theory nor unilateral moral duties (God-given or otherwise) can explain the explicit language of cooperation in developing and enforcing principles of military ethics and the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38.  72
    Traditional Roles of African Women in Peace Making and Peace Building: An Evaluation.Anweting Kevin Ibok & Ogar Tony Ogar - 2018 - GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis 1 (1):41-56.
    The study set out to scrutinize the scope of conflict in Africa and further evaluate the contribution of women to the peace process as well as the challenges such roles impose on them. The study affirms the important roles of women as an agent of peace in which they demonstrated an act of courage and love to end conflicts when men failed. The study shows that there is an overemphasis on women as victims of conflict or sometimes as combatants (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Just War, Citizens’ Responsibility, 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, and of public intellectuals in particular, in times of war? An analysis of Michael Walzer’s thought opens promising avenues for answering this question. It will be necessary, first of all, to re-examine the classic distinction between combatants and noncombatants – a thesis that Walzer defended but that several philosophers have criticized in recent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark