Journal of Military Ethics 6 (1):60-74 (2007)

Roger Wertheimer
Agnes Scott College
Contra Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan, neither classical just war theory nor the contemporary rules of war require or support any notion of combatant moral equality. Nations rightly accept prohibitions against punishing enemy combatants without recognizing any legal or moral right of aggressors to kill. The notion of combatant moral equality has real import only in our interpersonal -- and intrapersonal -- attitudes, since the notion effectively preempts any ground for conscientious objection. Walzer is criticized for over-emphasizing our collective responses to war conduct and slighting our personal, extra-political responses.
Keywords moral equality of combatants (soldiers)  just war theory  conscientious objection  rules of war  Michael Walzer
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/15027570601183352
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
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.
Response to McMahan’s Paper.Micheal Walzer - 2006 - Philosophia 34 (1):43-45.
The Ethics of Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2006 - Philosophia 34 (1):23-41.
Killing in War: A Reply to Walzer.Jeff McMahan - 2006 - Philosophia 34 (1):47-51.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Advice and Dissent: 'The Uniform Perspective'.George R. Lucas - 2009 - Journal of Military Ethics 8 (2):141-161.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
1,092 ( #2,941 of 2,324,615 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
64 ( #8,942 of 2,324,615 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes