In his widely influential statement of just war theory, Michael Walzer exempts conscripted soldiers from all responsibility for taking part in war, whether just or unjust (the thesis of the moral equality of soldiers). He endows the overwhelming majority of civilians with almost absolute immunity from military attack on the ground that they aren't responsible for the war their country is waging, whether just or unjust. I argue that Walzer is much too lenient on both soldiers and civilians. Soldiers fighting (...) for a just cause and soldiers fighting for an unjust one are not morally equal. A substantial proportion of civilians in a democracy are responsible, to a significant degree, for their country's unjust war. Moreover, under certain (admittedly rare) circumstances, some of them are legitimate targets of military attack. This has bearing on settling moral accounts in the wake of war and the issue of forgiving the wrongs done in its course: possible candidates for such forgiveness are much more numerous than is usually assumed. (shrink)

RésuméLe pacifisme a toujours constitué une approche respectable et influente à l'éthique de la guerre et de la paix. On veut ici, à partir de la littérature récente, en proposer une nouvelle évaluation. Plus précisément, l'article a deux objectifs: proposer une présentation rigoureuse et charitable des thèses pacifistes; et avancer, dans la perspective de la théorie contemporaine de la juste guerre, une critique puissante et détaillée des thèses en question.

Commonsense moral thought holds that what makes terrorism particularly abhorrent is the fact that it tends to be directed toward innocent victims. Yet contemporary philosophers tend to doubt that the concept of innocence plays any significant role here, and to deny that prohibitions against targeting noncombatants can be justified through appeal to their moral innocence. I argue, however, that the arguments used to support these doubts are ultimately unsuccessful. Indeed, the philosophical positions in question tend to misunderstand the justification of (...) both the prohibition against targeting noncombatants, and that of the permission to attack combatants, for which the paper offers a new account. Such misunderstandings make it all too easy to justify both terrorist actions and morally objectionable actions on the part of nations at war. Taking proper account of the role of innocence in the context of armed conflict will alter our ordinary ways of thinking about the ethics of war, with respect to both jus in bello and jus ad bellum. (shrink)

This paper begins with a discussion of different definitions of “terrorism” and endorses one version of a tactical definition, so-called because it treats terrorism as involving the use of a quite specific tactic in the pursuit of political ends, namely, violent attacks upon the innocent. This contrasts with a political status definition in which “terrorism” is defined as any form of sub-state political violence against the state. Some consequences of the tactical definition are explored, notably the fact that it allows (...) for the possibility of state terrorism against individuals, sub-state groups and other states. But a major problem for the tactical definition is the account to be given of “the innocent.” In line with justwar thinking, the idea of “the innocent” is unpacked in terms of the concept of non-combatants and this in turn is treated as the category of those who are not prosecuting the harm that allows for a legitimate violent response. Problems with this approach are explored, with particular reference to criticisms made by Gregory Kavka. The recent drive to expand the class of those who may be legitimately attacked is subjected to scrutiny. Particular attention is paid to the role of “collective responsibility” and “deserving your government” in these arguments. (shrink)

Drawing on insights of thinkers in the natural rights tradition, Draper analyzes numerous hypothetical cases including those involving a runaway trolley, then seeks to determine if killing civilians in war is ever justified. In his consideration of this issue he avoids appealing to the principle of double effect. Having considered hypothetical cases at length, he leaves it to others to decide if any option to go to war is justifiable. In this regard he himself is sceptical.

The Principle of Double Effect has served as a guide for both statesmen and soldiers since the middle ages in determining which acts in war are morally permissible and which are not. It is used, in particular, by those who make their moral decisions on the basis of certain moral rules that concern the moral consequences of action. This Principle of Double Effect (hereafter referred to as PDE) comes into play in situations where an agent has the option of performing (...) an act with both good and bad consequences. Advocates of PDE believe that it is morally significant whether a bad consequence is intended by the agent or merely forseen as incidental to an act that is in all other respects morally acceptable.^ Of great interest to moral philosophers discussing acts of war is how this principle applies to the deaths of persons not directly involved in the prosecution of the war. Proponents of the PDE claim that while it is morally impermissible to intentionally bring about the deaths of innocent people during combat, either as a means to a military objective or as a goal in itself, it is permissible under certain circumstances for an agent to choose a course of action which may bring about the deaths of innocent people as a forseeable consequence. (shrink)