Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (3):329-335 (2009)

Authors
Vittorio Bufacchi
University College Cork
Abstract
abstract This article refutes Henry Shue's claim that in the case of preventive military attacks it is sometimes morally permissible to make an exception to the fundamental principle regarding the inviolability of individual rights. By drawing on a comparison between torture and preventive military attacks, I will argue that the potential risks of institutionalizing preventive military attacks — what I call the Institutionalizing Argument — are far too great to even contemplate. Two potential risks with setting up a bureaucracy which specializes in preventive military attacks will be highlighted: that any preventive military strike may nourish a cycle of violence that will inevitably cause more deaths and destruction than could ever be justified; and that such preventive military strikes may be abused by political leaders in a desperate effort to hold on to power, including democratically elected political leaders working within a democratic framework.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2009.00457.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,046
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Value of Applied Philosophy.Suzanne Uniacke - 2016 - In Kimberley Brownlee, David Coady & Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Applied Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-07-14

Total views
36 ( #302,417 of 2,454,492 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,188 of 2,454,492 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes