Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (2):123-144 (1972)
|Abstract||From the apathetic reaction to atrocities committed in Vietnam by the United States and its allies, one may conclude that moral restrictions on the conduct of war command almost as little sympathy among the general public as they do among those charged with the formation of U.S. military policy. Even when restrictions on the conduct of warfare are defended, it is usually on legal grounds alone: their moral basis is often poorly understood. I wish to argue that certain restrictions are neither arbitrary nor merely conventional, and that their validity does not depend simply on their usefulness. There is, in other words, a moral basis for the rules of war, even though the conventions now officially in force are far from giving it perfect expression.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jules Lobel, Conflicts Between the Commander in Chief and Congress: Concurrent Power Over the Conduct of War.
Thomas Nagel (1979/2012). Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press.
Roger Wertheimer (2007). Reconnoitering Combatant Moral Equality. Journal of Military Ethics 6 (1):60-74.
William A. Gouveia (2004). An Analysis of Moral Dissent: An Army Officer's Public Protest of the Vietnam War. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (1):53-60.
Jeff McMahan (2006). Killing in War: A Reply to Walzer. Philosophia 34 (1):47-51.
Lionel K. McPherson (2005). The Limits of the War Convention. Philosophy and Social Criticism 31 (2):147-163.
Steven Metz & Phillip R. Cuccia (eds.) (2011). Defining War for the 21st Century. Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
Ian Clark (1988). Waging War: A Philosophical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Karsten J. Struhl (2006). Can There Be a Just War? Radical Philosophy Today 2006:3-25.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads161 ( #2,866 of 722,704 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #14,864 of 722,704 )
How can I increase my downloads?