Results for 'war'

648 found
Order:
  1. 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   9 citations  
  2. 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  
  3. 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   2 citations  
  4. 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  
  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   5 citations  
  6. 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  
  7. 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   31 citations  
  8. 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   2 citations  
  9. 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  
  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   1 citation  
  11. 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  
  12.  43
    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. 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  
  14. 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  
  15. 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  
  16. 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  
  17. 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  
  18. 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   22 citations  
  19. 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   23 citations  
  20. 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  
  21. 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  
  22. 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  
  23.  7
    What War? Why War?Girma Ayele - manuscript
    War as intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or para groups, such as mercenaries, insurgents, etc is not old fashion but continues to be the vibrant (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. Abortion, Forced Labor, and War.Laura Purdy - 1996 - In Reproducing Persons: Issues in Feminist Bioethics. Cornell University Press.
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  25.  89
    Freedom, the State, and War: Hegels Challenge to World Peace.Shinkyu Lee - 2017 - International Politics 54 (2):203-220.
    Several conflict theorists have appropriated Hegelsstruggle for recognitionto highlight the healthy dimensions of conflict and to explore ways of reaching reconciliation through mutual recognition. (...)In so doing, some scholars attend to the interpersonal dimension of reconciliation, while others focus on the interstate dimension of reconciliation. This paper argues that both approaches miss important Hegelian insights into the modern state. Hegel understands that freedom must be situated and bounded in order to take a concrete form. He believes that concrete freedom and domestic reconciliation create an atmosphere that can pressure the state to be more confrontational with other states by attaining a stronger individuality. Thus, the common concern about freedom among Hegelian states remains athinversion of communication, vulnerable to such factors as national honor or recognition status. Hegels challenge urges peace-inspired scholars to explore ways of achieving concrete freedom and domestic reconciliation while simultaneously relieving interstate conflict. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26. 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  
  27. 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  
  28. 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  
  29. 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  
  30. 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  
  31. 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  
  32. 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  
  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  
  34. 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  
  35.  13
    A Culture War in Classics[REVIEW]Vicente Medina - 2021 - Chronicle of Higher Education Journal 2:1-1.
    The so-called cultural war in classics seems to have evolved into a false dilemma, at least according to Dan-el Padilla Peraltas and Johanna Haninks (...)understanding of their profession (“If Classics Doesnt Change, Let It Burn, The Chronicle Review, February 11): Either one accepts the views of those who have glorified and romanticized about Roman and Greek classical culture or one accepts the views of those who are ready toburn downthe classical tradition. Between the two extremes there is plenty of room and issues to be explored from serious, critical, and contestable points of view. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. War Goethe ein erotisches Vorbild für Rainer Maria Rilke? Einige Bemerkungen zu "Das Tagebuch" von J.W. Goethe und "Sieben Gedichte" von R.M. Rilke.Barbara Ratecka - 2000 - Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Germanica 2:219-230.
    Artykuł dotyczy dwóch bardzo mało znanych utworów słynnych twórców literatury niemieckiej. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, twórca Fausta, ma w swym dorobku moralizatorski wiersz pt. Dziennik. Jednak z (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37.  38
    Just War and Global Distributive Justice.Laura Valentini - 2016 - In Pietro Maffettone & David Held (eds.), Global Political Theory. Cambridge, UK: pp. 143-57.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. 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  
  39. Mandatory Minimums and the War on Drugs.Daniel Wodak - 2018 - In David Boonin (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy. Palgrave.
    Mandatory minimum sentencing provisions have been a feature of the U.S. justice system since 1790. But they have expanded considerably under the war on drugs, and (...)their use has expanded considerably under the Trump Administration; some states are also poised to expand drug-related mandatory minimums further in efforts to fight the current opioid epidemic. In this paper I outline and evaluate three prominent arguments for and against the use of mandatory minimums in the war on drugsthey appeal, respectively, to proportionality, consistency, and efficiency. I ultimately defend the view that the use of mandatory minimums in the war on drugs is unjust. -/- . (shrink)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. Drones and the Threshold for Waging War.Ezio Di Nucci - forthcoming - Politik.
    I argue that, if drones make waging war easier, the reason why they do so may not be the one commonly assumed within the philosophical debatenamely (...) the promised reduction in casualties on either sidebut a more complicated one which has little to do with concern for ones own soldiers or, for that matter, the enemy; and a lot more to do with the political intricacies of international relations and domestic politics; I use the example of the Obama Administrations drone policies to illustrate this argument. My point is meant to have wider methodological significance: philosophy can make an important contribution to this and related applied debates; but it is not by artificiallyand optimisticallysimplifying realities on the ground that philosophers can be of help. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  41. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  42.  70
    How Sincere Was Leibnizs Religious Justification for War in the Justa Dissertatio?Lloyd Strickland - 2016 - In Wenchao Li (ed.), Für unser Glück oder das Glück anderer (volume 5). Hildesheim: Georg Olms. pp. 401-412.
    This paper is concerned with Leibnizs Egypt Plan, written in 1671 and 1672, when Leibniz was in the service of the Elector of Mainz. One of (...)the aims of this paper is to offer a more balanced and plausible reading of the religious benefits of war that Leibniz outlines in his Egypt plan. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  43. On Following Orders in an Unjust War.David Estlund - 2007 - Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (2):213–234.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  44. Just War and the Indian Tradition: Arguments From the Battlefield.Shyam Ranganathan - 2019 - In Comparative Just War Theory: An Introduction to International Perspectives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 173-190.
    A famous Indian argument for jus ad bellum and jus in bello is presented in literary form in the Mahābhārata: it involves events and dynamics between moral (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45.  61
    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   5 citations  
  46. Non-Culpable Ignorance and Just War Theory.Jovan Babic - 2007 - Filozofija I Društvo 18 (3):59-68.
    The so called?non-culpable ignorance? is an instrument to justify participating in a war on a defeated side, on condition that fighters sincerely believe that they are (...) defending a just cause and had some valid reasons to believe in having a chance to win. Within the just war theory this instrument is needed to make both sides prima facie right, otherwise the theory would imply that those who lose are guilty in advance, especially if they are the weaker side. However, in contemporary context of criminalizing war the very concept of war is changing and becoming extremely vague. As wars are more and more?asymmetric?, just war theory might face serious challenges regarding incorporation of?non-culpable ignorance? within its scope, as well as difficulties in showing that justice goes with the victory, opening thus the issues of articulation of a just peace. Teza o "neskrivljenom neznanju" je instrument u okviru teorije pravednog rata koja sluzi da se moralno opravda ucesce u ratu za pripadnike one strane koja je porazena; uslovi za neskrivljenost su da su porazeni borci iskreno verovali da brane pravednu stvar i da su takodje iskreno verovali da imaju nekih izgleda da pobede. Bez ovog instrumenta teorija pravednog rata, jedna teorija koja opravdava rat preko pravednog uzroka rata, bi porazenoj strani narocito ako je slabija, morala da unapred pripise krivicu sto je uopste usla u rat. Medjutim, u savremenoj situaciji rasirene kriminalizacije rata sam pojam rata se menja i postaje izuzetno neodredjen. Kako ratovi postaju sve vise i vise "asimetricni", pre svega u snazi sukobljenih strana, cini se da se teorija pravednog rata suocava sa teskocom da u svoje okvire uopste situira "neskrivljeno neznanje", ali to povlaci teskocu te teorije da pokaze da pravda ide sa pobedom, otvarajuci tako pitanje artikulacije pravednog mira. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  47. Lethal Autonomous Weapons: Designing War Machines with Values.Steven Umbrello - 2019 - Delphi: Interdisciplinary Review of Emerging Technologies 1 (2):30-34.
    Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) have becomes the subject of continuous debate both at national and international levels. Arguments have been proposed both for the development and use (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48. Tensions in a Certain Conception of Just War as Law Enforcement.Jacob Blair - 2008 - Res Publica 14 (4):303-311.
    Many just war theorists (call them traditionalists) claim that just as people have a right to personal self-defense, so nations have a right to national-defense against (...) an aggressive military invasion. David Rodin claims that the traditionalist is unable to justify most defensive wars against aggression. For most aggressive states only commit conditional aggression in that they threaten to kill or maim the citizens of the nation they are invading only if those citizens resist the occupation. Most wars, then, claimed to be justified by the traditionalist fail to meet the proportionality criterion. Thus, a just war, for Rodin, is best conceived of as a punitive war of law enforcement, not as a war of national-defense. I argue that Rodin does not have a case against the traditionalist. If national-defense is a disproportionate response to conditional aggression, then punitive war is a disproportionate response as well. Furthermore, the belief that punitive war is a proportionate response to conditional aggression underscores the traditionalists view that self-determination, cultural identity and the like are of sufficient value to defend by means of lethal force. I end the paper by very briefly sketching an account, different from that of Rodins, of how individual nations can be justified in waging wars of law enforcement. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  49. Putting the War Back in Just War Theory: A Critique of Examples.Rigstad Mark - 2017 - Ethical Perspectives 24 (1):123-144.
    Analytic just war theorists often attempt to construct ideal theories of military justice on the basis of intuitions about imaginary and sometimes outlandish examples, often taken from (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50. Goodbye War on Terror? : Foucault and Butler on Discourses of Law, War and Exceptionalism.Andrew W. Neal - 2008 - In Michael Dillon & Andrew W. Neal (eds.), Foucault on Politics, Security and War. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 43--64.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 648