Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants

Ethics and International Affairs 33 (4):411-444 (2019)

Abstract
Traditional just war doctrine holds that political leaders are morally responsible for the decision to initiate war, while individual soldiers should be judged solely by their conduct in war. According to this view, soldiers fighting in an unjust war of aggression and soldiers on the opposing side seeking to defend their country are morally equal as long as each obeys the rules of combat. Revisionist scholars, however, maintain that soldiers who fight for an unjust cause bear at least some responsibility for advancing an immoral end, even if they otherwise fight ethically. This article examines the attitudes of the American public regarding the moral equality of combatants. Utilizing an original survey experiment, we find that the public's moral reasoning is generally more consistent with that of the revisionists than with traditional just war theory. Americans in our study judged soldiers who participate in unjust wars as less ethical than soldiers in just wars, even when their battlefield conduct is identical, and a large proportion supported harsh punishments for soldiers simply for participating in unjust wars. We also find, however, that much of the American public is willing to extend the moral license of just cause significantly further than revisionist scholars advocate: half of the Americans in our survey were willing to allow an unambiguous war crime—a massacre of innocent women and children—to go unpunished when the act was committed by soldiers fighting for a just cause. Our findings suggest that incorporation of revisionist principles into the laws of war would reinforce dangerous moral intuitions encouraging the killing of civilians.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0892679419000431
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,148
External links

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

The Ethics of Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2004 - Ethics 114 (4):693-733.
The Responsibility Dilemma for Killing in War: A Review Essay.Seth Lazar - 2010 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (2):180-213.
The Ethics of Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2006 - Philosophia 34 (1):693-733.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On Reciprocity and Practical Morality: A Response to Sagan and Valentino.Michael Walzer - 2019 - Ethics and International Affairs 33 (4):445-450.
The Curious Case of Combatant Culpability.David J. Garren - 2012 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 19 (2):72-80.
Self-Defense, Punishing Unjust Combatants and Justice in War.Steve Viner - 2010 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (3):297-319.
The Responsibility of Soldiers and the Ethics of Killing in War.Yitzhak Benbaji - 2007 - Philosophical Quarterly 57 (229):558–572.
Unjust War and a Soldier's Moral Dilemma.Jeff Montrose - 2013 - Journal of Military Ethics 12 (4):325-340.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-12-07

Total views
4 ( #1,139,507 of 2,285,423 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #325,441 of 2,285,423 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature