Search results for 'War' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  42
    Saba Bazargan (forthcoming). Non-Combatant Immunity and War-Profiteering. In Helen Frowe & Lazar Seth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics and War. Oxford University Press
    The principle of noncombatant immunity prohibits warring parties from intentionally targeting noncombatants. I explicate the moral version of this view and its criticisms by reductive individualists; they (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  42
    Jeff McMahan (2009/2011). Killing in War. Oxford University Press.
    Jeff McMahan urges us to reject the view, dominant throughout history, that mere participation in an unjust war is not wrong.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   38 citations  
  3. Jack Reynolds (forthcoming). Philosophy and/or Politics? Two Trajectories of Philosophy After the Great War and Their Contamination. In Matthew Sharpe & Rory Jeffs (eds.), Crisis and Reconfigurations: 100 years of European Thinking After World War 1. Springer
    In this chapter, I revisit the question of the philosophical significance of the Great War upon the trajectory of philosophy in the twentieth century. While accounts of (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Jeff McMahan (2004). The Ethics of Killing in War. Ethics 114 (4):693-733.
    The traditional theory of the just war comprises two sets of principles, one governing the resort to war ( jus ad bellum) and the other governing the conduct (...) of war ( jus in bello). The two sets of principles are regarded, in Michael Walzers words, aslogically independent. It is perfectly possible for a just war to be fought unjustly and for an unjust war to be fought in strict accordance with the rules.”1 Let us say that those who fight in a just war arejust combatants,” while those who fight in a war that is unjust because it lacks a just cause areunjust combatants.” (A just cause is an aim that can contribute to the justification for war and that may permissibly be pursued by means of war.)2 The most important implication of the idea that jus in bello is independent of jus ad bellum is that.. (shrink)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   45 citations  
  5.  51
    Thomas W. Simpson & Vincent C. Müller (forthcoming). Just War and RobotsKillings. Philosophical Quarterly:pqv075.
    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)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  22
    George A. Reisch (2005). How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge University Press.
    This intriguing and ground-breaking book is the first in-depth study of the development of philosophy of science in the United States during the Cold War. It (...) documents the political vitality of logical empiricism and Otto Neurath's Unity of Science Movement when these projects emigrated to the US in the 1930s and follows their de-politicization by a convergence of intellectual, cultural and political forces in the 1950s. Students of logical empiricism and the Vienna Circle treat these as strictly intellectual non-political projects. In fact, the refugee philosophers of science were highly active politically and debated questions about values inside and outside science, as a result of which their philosophy of science was scrutinized politically both from within and without the profession, by such institutions as J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. It will prove absorbing reading to philosophers and historians of science, intellectual historians, and scholars of Cold War studies. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   25 citations  
  7. Thomas M. Hughes (2012). Is Political Obligation Necessary for Obedience? Hobbes on Hostility, War and Obligation. Teoria Politica 2:77-99.
    Contemporary debates on obedience and consent, such as those between Thomas Senor and A. John Simmons, suggest that either political obligation must exist as a concept or (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Helen Frowe (2011). The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction. Routledge.
    <P>When is it right to go to war? When is a war illegal? What are the rules of engagement? What should happen when a war is (...)over? How should we view terrorism?P> <P><EM>The Ethics of War and PeaceEM> is a fresh and contemporary introduction to one of the oldest but still most relevant ethical debates. It introduces students to contemporary Just War Theory in a stimulating and engaging way, perfect for those approaching the topic for the first time. P> <P>Helen Frowe explains the core issues in Just War Theory, and chapter by chapter examines the recent and ongoing philosophical? debates on:P> <UL> <UL> <P>P>UL> <LI>theories of self defence and national defenceLI> <LI>Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Jus post BellumLI> <LI>the moral status of combatantsLI> <LI>the principle of non-combatant immunityLI> <LI>the nature of terrorism and the moral status of terrorists.LI> <UL> <P>P>UL>UL> <P>Each chapter concludes with a useful summary, discussion questions and suggestions for further reading, to aid student learning and revision. <EM>The Ethics of War and PeaceEM> is the ideal textbook for students studying philosophy, politics and international relations.P>. (shrink)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  9.  47
    N. Fotion (2007). War and Ethics: A New Just War Theory. Continuum.
    Introduction -- Just war theory -- Objections to just war theory -- Easy cases : Germany, Japan, Korea -- Harder cases : Serbia, Russia, Kosovo, Iraq -- Multiple reasons -- More problems (...)with just war theory -- Prevention : Sri Lanka, Thailand -- Two just war theories -- Problems with just war theory I -- Problems for just war theory II -- Closing thoughts. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  10. Jeff McMahan (2006). The Ethics of Killing in War. Philosophia 34 (1):693-733.
    This paper argues that certain central tenets of the traditional theory of the just war cannot be correct. It then advances an alternative account grounded in the (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  11. Seth Lazar (2013). Associative Duties and the Ethics of Killing in War. 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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  12.  25
    Larry May (2007). War Crimes and Just War. Cambridge University Press.
    Larry May argues that the best way to understand war crimes is as crimes against humanness rather than as violations of justice.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  13. Seth Lazar (2012). The Morality and Law of War. In Andrei Marmor (ed.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Law. Routledge 364.
    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)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. Uwe Steinhoff (2012). The Moral Equality of Modern Combatants and the Myth of Justified War. 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 (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  15.  34
    Paul Richard Daniels (2015). Just War and Non-Combatants in the Private Military Industry. 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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Dan Demetriou (2013). Honor War Theory: Romance or Reality? Philosophical Papers 42 (3):285 - 313.
    Just War Theory (JWT) replaced an older &quot;warrior code,&quot; 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 &quot;Honor War Theory&quot; (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)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17.  11
    Richard W. Wrangham & Luke Glowacki (2012). Intergroup Aggression in Chimpanzees and War in Nomadic Hunter-Gatherers. Human Nature 23 (1):5-29.
    Chimpanzee and hunter-gatherer intergroup aggression differ in important ways, including humans having the ability to form peaceful relationships and alliances among groups. This paper nevertheless evaluates (...)the hypothesis that intergroup aggression evolved according to the same functional principles in the two speciesselection favoring a tendency to kill members of neighboring groups when killing could be carried out safely. According to this idea chimpanzees and humans are equally risk-averse when fighting. When self-sacrificial war practices are found in humans, therefore, they result from cultural systems of reward, punishment, and coercion rather than evolved adaptations to greater risk-taking. To test thischimpanzee model,” we review intergroup fighting in chimpanzees and nomadic hunter-gatherers living with other nomadic hunter-gatherers as neighbors. Whether humans have evolved specific psychological adaptations for war is unknown, but current evidence suggests that the chimpanzee model is an appropriate starting point for analyzing the biological and cultural evolution of warfare. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  18.  25
    Jonathan Parry (2015). Just War Theory, Legitimate Authority, and Irregular Belligerency. 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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19. Aleksandar Jokic (2012). What's A Just War Theorist? 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 (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20.  6
    Audra J. Wolfe (2012). The Cold War Context of the Golden Jubilee, Or, Why We Think of Mendel as the Father of Genetics. Journal of the History of Biology 45 (3):389 - 414.
    In September 1950, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) dedicated its annual meeting to a "Golden Jubilee of Genetics" that celebrated the 50th anniversary of the rediscovery (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  21.  56
    A. J. Coates (1997). The Ethics of War. Distributed Exclusively in the Usa by St. Martin's Press.
    Drawing on examples from the history of warfare from the crusades to the present day, "The ethics of war" explores the limits and possibilities of the <span (...)span> regulation of war. While resisting the commonly held view that 'war is hell', A.J. Coates focuses on the tensions which exist between war and morality. The argument is conducted from a just war standpoint, though the <span class='Hi'>moralspan> ambiguity and mixed record of that tradition is acknowledge and the dangers which an exaggerated view of the justice or <span class='Hi'>moralspan> worth of war poses are underlined. In the first part, the broad image of the just war is compared with the competing images of realism, militarism and pacifism. In the second part, the <span class='Hi'>moralspan> issues associated both with the decision to go to war and with the manner in which war is conducted are explored. Was the allied decision to go to war in the Gulf premature? were economic sanctions a more effective and morally preferable option? was Britain justified in going to war over the Falklands? did the allied bombing of Germany in the Second World War constitute a war crime? should the IRA's claim to belligerent status be recognised? these questions and more are raised in this important book. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  22. Richard Adams & Chris Barrie (2013). The Bureaucratization of War: Moral Challenges Exemplified by the Covert Lethal Drone. Ethics and Global Politics 6 (4):245-260.
    This article interrogates the bureaucratization of war, incarnate in the covert lethal drone. Bureaucracies are criticized typically for their complexity, inefficiency, and inflexibility. This article is concerned (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  22
    Richard Norman (1995). Ethics, Killing, and War. Cambridge University Press.
    Can war ever be justified? Why is it wrong to kill? In this new book Richard Norman looks at these and other related questions, and thereby examines (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  24.  20
    Juha Räikkä & Andrei Rodin (2015). Environmental Security and Just Causes for War. Almanac: Discourses of Ethics 10 (1):47-54.
    This article asks whether a country that suffers from serious environmental problems caused by another country could have a just cause for a defensive war? Danish philosopher (...)
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. John W. Lango (2005). Preventive Wars, Just War Principles, and the United Nations. 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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26. George P. Fletcher (2002). Romantics at War: Glory and Guilt in the Age of Terrorism. Princeton University Press.
    America is at war with terrorism. Terrorists must be brought to justice.We hear these phrases together so often that we rarely pause to reflect on the (...)dramatic differences between the demands of war and the demands of justice, differences so deep that the pursuit of one often comes at the expense of the other. In this book, one of the country's most important legal thinkers brings much-needed clarity to the still unfolding debates about how to pursue war and justice in the age of terrorism. George Fletcher also draws on his rare ability to combine insights from history, philosophy, literature, and law to place these debates in a rich cultural context. He seeks to explain why Americans--for so many years cynical about war--have recently found war so appealing. He finds the answer in a revival of Romanticism, a growing desire in the post-Vietnam era to identify with grand causes and to put nations at the center of ideas about glory and guilt.Fletcher opens with unsettling questions about the nature of terrorism, war, and justice, showing how dangerously slippery the concepts can be. He argues that those sympathetic to war are heirs to the ideals of Byron, Fichte, and other Romantics in their belief that nations--not just individuals--must uphold honor and be held accountable for crimes. Fletcher writes that ideas about collective glory and guilt are far more plausible and widespread than liberal individualists typically recognize. But as he traces the implications of the Romantic mindset for debates about war crimes, treason, military tribunals, and genocide, he also shows that losing oneself in a grand cause can all too easily lead to moral catastrophe.A work of extraordinary intellectual power and relevance, the book will change how we think not only about world events, but about the conflicting individualist and collective impulses that tear at all of us. (shrink)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  27. Igor Primoratz (2002). Michael Walzer's Just War Theory: Some Issues of Responsibility. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (2):221-243.
    In his widely influential statement of just war <span class='Hi'>theoryspan>, Michael Walzer exempts conscripted soldiers from all responsibility for taking part in war, whether just (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  28. Uwe Steinhoff (2007). On the Ethics of War and Terrorism. Oxford University Press.
    In this book Uwe Steinhoff describes and explains the basic tenets of just war theory and gives a precise, succinct and highly critical account of its present (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  29.  54
    Saba Bazargan (2013). Complicitous Liability in War. 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)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  30.  12
    Helen Frowe & Gerald Lang (eds.) (2014). How We Fight: Ethics in War. OUP.
    How We Fight: Ethics in War contains ten groundbreaking essays by some of the leading philosophers of war. The essays offer new perspectives on key debates including (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  31. Uwe Steinhoff (2009). What Is WarAnd Can a Lone Individual Wage One? 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, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  32.  15
    Aant Elzinga (2012). The Rise and Demise of the International Council for Science Policy Studies (ICSPS) as a Cold War Bridging Organization. Minerva 50 (3):277-305.
    When the journal Minerva was founded in 1962, science and higher educational issues were high on the agenda, lending impetus to the interdisciplinary field ofScience Studies (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33.  28
    Steven Lee (2012). Ethics and War: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
    What are the <span class='Hi'>ethicalspan> principles underpinning the idea of a just war and how should they be adapted to changing social and military circumstances? (...)span> foundations of just war theory and discusses a wide range of topics including humanitarian intervention, preventive war, the <span class='Hi'>moralspan> status of civilians and enemy combatants, civil war and terrorism. He shows how just war theory relates to both pacifism and realism. Finally, he considers the future of war and the prospects for its obsolescence. His clear and wide-ranging discussion, richly illustrated with examples, will be invaluable for students and other readers interested in the <span class='Hi'>ethicalspan> challenges posed by the changing nature of war. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  34. Rory J. Conces (2009). Rethinking Realism (or Whatever) and the War on Terrorism in a Place Like the Balkans. Theoria 56 (120):81-124.
    Political realism remains a powerful theoretical framework for thinking about international relations, including the war on terrorism. For Morgenthau and other realists, foreign policy is a matter (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  9
    Graham Parsons (2012). Public War and the Moral Equality of Combatants. Journal of Military Ethics 11 (4):2012.
    Following Hugo Grotius, a distinction is developed between private and public war. It is argued that, contrary to how most contemporary critics of the moral equality of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  36. Christopher Toner (2010). The Logical Structure of Just War Theory. Journal of Ethics 14 (2):81-102.
    A survey of just war theory literature reveals the existence of quite different lists of principles. This apparent arbitrariness raises a number of questions: What is the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  37.  22
    Doris E. Buss (2009). Rethinking 'Rape as a Weapon of War'. Feminist Legal Studies 17 (2):145-163.
    One of the most significant shifts in current thinking on war and gender is the recognition that rape in wartime is not a simple by-product of (...)war, but often a planned and targeted policy. For many feministsrape as a weapon of warprovides a way to articulate the systematic, pervasive, and orchestrated nature of wartime sexual violence that marks it as integral rather than incidental to war. This recognition of rape as a weapon of war has taken on legal significance at the Rwandan and Yugoslav Tribunals where rape has been prosecuted as a crime against humanity and genocide. In this paper, I examine how the Rwanda Tribunals record of judgments conceives of rape enacted as an instrument of the genocide. I consider in particular how the Tribunals conception ofrape as a weapon of warshapes what can be known about sexual violence and gender in the Rwandan genocide and what cannot, the categories of victims legally recognised and those that are not, and the questions pursued, and those foreclosed, about the patterns of violence before and during the genocide. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  38. Rosemary B. Kellison (2015). Impure Agency and the Just War. Journal of Religious Ethics 43 (2):317-341.
    Feminist critiques of intention challenge some aspects of traditional just war reasoning, including the criteria of right intention and discrimination. I take note of these challenges and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  6
    Massimo Durante (2015). Violence, Just Cyber War and Information. Philosophy and Technology 28 (3):369-385.
    Cyber warfare has changed the scenario of war from an empirical and a theoretical viewpoint. Cyber war is no longer based on physical violence only, but on (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40.  37
    Graham Parsons (2012). The Incoherence of Walzer's Just War Theory. Social Theory and Practice 38 (4):663-88.
    In his Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer claims that his <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> of just war is based on the rights of individuals to life (...)span> of jus ad bellum on the supreme rights of supra-individual political communities. According to his <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> of jus ad bellum, the rights of political communities are of utmost importance, and individuals can be sacrificed for the sake of these communal rights. At the same time, Walzer bases his <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> of jus in bello on the supreme rights of individuals to life and liberty. According to his <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> of jus in bello, the rights of individuals are of utmost importance, and political communities can never permissibly violate them in war. Thus, Walzers <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> of just war is based on two incompatible theories of justice. This explains why Walzers <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> produces incoherent practical prescriptions in cases of supreme emergencies. Furthermore, it is impossible for Walzer to base his <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> of jus ad bellum on the rights of individuals as he conceives them. The <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> of jus ad bellum holds that soldiers are obligated to obey the commands of their political superiors. However, this obligation violates the rights of individuals in a number of respects. This is why Walzer does not base the <span class='Hi'>theoryspan> of jus ad bellum on individual rights, and produces an incoherent <span class='Hi'>theoryspan>. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  41.  13
    David L. Perry (2009). Partly Cloudy: Ethics in War, Espionage, Covert Action, and Interrogation. Scarecrow Press.
    An introduction to ethical reasoning -- Comparative religious perspectives on war -- Just and unjust war in Shakespeare's Henry V -- Anticipating and preventing atrocities in war -- The (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  42.  24
    James Turner Johnson (2008). The Idea of Defense in Historical and Contemporary Thinking About Just War. Journal of Religious Ethics 36 (4):543-556.
    What is, or should be, the role of defense in thinking about the justification of use of armed force? Contemporary just war thinking prioritizes defense as the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  43.  29
    Torkel Brekke (ed.) (2006). The Ethics of War in Asian Civilizations: A Comparative Perspective. Routledge.
    This study of the comparative ethics of war seeks to open a discussion about whether there are universal standards in the ideologies of warfare between the major (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  44.  11
    James Turner Johnson (2008). Thinking Comparatively About Religion and War. [REVIEW] Journal of Religious Ethics 36 (1):157-179.
    In contrast to the period when the "Journal of Religious Ethics" began publishing, the study of religion in relation to war and connected issues has prospered in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  45. Nicholas Maxwell (2007). The Disastrous War Against Terrorism: Violence Versus Enlightenment. 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 (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Jeff McMahan (2006). Killing in War: A Reply to Walzer. Philosophia 34 (1):47-51.
    Michael Walzer suggests that our common beliefs about individual responsibility and liability become largely irrelevant in the conduct of war. In conditions of war, everything is changed. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  47.  36
    Cheyney Ryan (2013). Pacifism, Just War, and Self-Defense. Philosophia 41 (4):1-29.
    This essay distinguishes two main forms of pacifism, personal pacifism and political pacifism. It then contrasts the views on self-defense of political pacifism and just war (...)theory, paying special attention to notions of the state and sovereignty. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48.  4
    Jovana Davidovic (forthcoming). Should the Changing Character of War Affect Our Theories of War? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice:1-16.
    War has changed so much that it barely resembles the paradigmatic cases of armed conflict that just war theories and international humanitarian law seemed to have had (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Jovana Davidovic (2012). International Rule-of-Law and Killing in War. 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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  53
    Nick Fotion (2006). Two Theories of Just War. Philosophia 34 (1):53-64.
    As it is traditionally conceived, Just War Theory is not well suited for dealing with nation vs non-nation wars. It thus makes sense to create a (...)second Just War Theory to deal with these wars. This article explores the differences and similarities between the two theories. (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000