David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Military Ethics 13 (1):94-105 (2014)
This article focuses on the ethical implications of so-called ‘collateral damage’. It develops a moral typology of collateral harm to innocents, which occurs as a side effect of military or quasi-military action. Distinguishing between accidental and incidental collateral damage, it introduces four categories of such damage: negligent, oblivious, knowing and reckless collateral damage. Objecting mainstream versions of the doctrine of double effect, the article argues that in order for any collateral damage to be morally permissible, violent agents must comply with high standards of care. In order for incidental harm to be permissible, an agent must take pains to avoid such harm even at higher cost to him- or herself. It is argued that accidentally but negligently caused collateral damage may be just as difficult to excuse as incidental harm. Only if high precautionary standards of care are met, can unintended harm to innocents – incidental or accidental – be permissible. In practice, such a strong commitment to avoiding harm to civilians may well lead us to question more generally and rethink more radically how violent conflicts ought to be fought, how military violence ought to be used and whether there are better ways of achieving those aims that we think are legitimate than those we are currently using.
|Keywords||Just War Theory Doctrine of Double Effect Collateral Damage Tony Coady Principle of Due Care Noncombatant Immunity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anne Schwenkenbecher (2012). Terrorism: A Philosophical Enquiry. Palgrave Macmillan.
F. M. Kamm (2005). Terror and Collateral Damage: Are They Permissible? [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):381 - 401.
David Lefkowitz (2008). Collateral Damage. In Larry May & Emily Crookston (eds.), War: Essays in Political Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Peter van Inwagen (2007). Impotence and Collateral Damage. Philosophical Topics 35 (1/2):67-82.
F. M. Kamm (ed.) (2011). Ethics for Enemies: Terror, Torture, and War. Oxford University Press.
Steven Lee (2004). Double Effect, Double Intention, and Asymmetric Warfare. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):233-251.
Uwe Steinhoff (2007). On the Ethics of War and Terrorism. Oxford University Press.
Joshua Stuchlik (2012). A Critique of Scanlon on Double Effect. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (2):178-199.
Jeff McMahan (1994). Revising the Doctrine of Double Effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (2):201-212.
Hilde Lindemann Nelson (2004). Damaged Bodies, Damaged Identities. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 11 (1):7-11.
Tamar Meisels (2014). Assassination: Targeting Nuclear Scientists. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 33 (2):207-234.
Igor Primoratz (2005). Civilian Immunity in War. Philosophical Forum 36 (1):41–58.
Nils Holtug (2002). The Harm Principle. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):357-389.
Allison McIntyre (2004). The Double Life of Double Effect. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (1):61-74.
Richard Hull (2000). Deconstructing the Doctrine of Double Effect. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):195-207.
Added to index2012-10-25
Total downloads188 ( #4,293 of 1,409,994 )
Recent downloads (6 months)30 ( #6,636 of 1,409,994 )
How can I increase my downloads?