Results for 'war'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  75
    Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2009 - 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 (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   75 citations  
  2.  88
    Civil War and Revolution.Jonathan Parry - 2018 - In Seth Lazar & Helen Frowe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford, UK:
    The vast majority of work on the ethics of war focuses on traditional wars between states. In this chapter, I aim to show that this is an (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  82
    Weighing Lives in War- Foreign Vs. Domestic.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2018 - In Larry May (ed.), Cambridge Handbook on the Just War. pp. 186-198.
    I argue that the lives of domestic and enemy civilians should not receive equal weight in our proportionality calculations. Rather, the lives of enemy civilians ought to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Preventive Wars, Just War Principles, and the United Nations.John W. Lango - 2005 - 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5. Compensation and Proportionality in War.Saba Bazargan-Forward - 2017 - In Claire Finkelstein, Larry Larry & Jens David Ohlin (eds.), Weighing Lives in War. Oxford University Press).
    Even in just wars we infringe the rights of countless civilians whose ruination enables us to protect our own rights. These civilians are owed compensation, even in (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Non-Combatant Immunity and War-Profiteering.Saba Bazargan - 2017 - 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  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Jus Ad Vim and the Just Use of Lethal Force Short of War.S. Brandt Ford - 2013 - In Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas Evans & Adam Henschke (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century. Routledge. pp. 63--75.
    In this chapter, I argue that the notion which Michael Walzer calls jus ad vim might improve the moral evaluation for using military lethal force in conflicts (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  22
    Emerging Metropolis: Politics of Planning in Tehran During Cold War.Asma Mehan - 2017 - In COLD WAR AT THE CROSSROADS: 194X-198X. Architecture and planning between politics and ideology. Milan, Metropolitan City of Milan, Italy:
    The Second World War and its associated political events of a national and global scale brought new circumstances, which was considerably influenced the development processes of Tehran. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  37
    How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic.George A. Reisch - 2005 - 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  
     
    Bookmark   58 citations  
  10. The Ethics of Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2004 - 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 (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   73 citations  
  11. Is Political Obligation Necessary for Obedience? Hobbes on Hostility, War and Obligation.Thomas M. Hughes - 2012 - 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 (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  61
    Defensive Killing: An Essay on War and Self-Defence.Helen Frowe - 2014 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Most people believe that it is sometimes morally permissible for a person to use force to defend herself or others against harm. In Defensive Killing, Helen Frowe (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  13. The Ethics of Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2006 - 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 (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   44 citations  
  14. Associative Duties and the Ethics of Killing in War.Seth Lazar - 2013 - 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  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  15. Just War and RobotsKillings.Thomas W. Simpson & Vincent C. Müller - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 66 (263):302-22.
    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 (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  16.  36
    Intergroup Aggression in Chimpanzees and War in Nomadic Hunter-Gatherers.Richard W. Wrangham & Luke Glowacki - 2012 - 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  17. The Future of War: The Ethical Potential of Leaving War to Lethal Autonomous Weapons.Steven Umbrello, Phil Torres & Angelo F. De Bellis - forthcoming - AI and Society.
    Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) are robotic weapons systems, primarily of value to the military, that could engage in offensive or defensive actions without human intervention. This paper (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  18. The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction.Helen Frowe - 2011 - Routledge.
    The Ethics of War and Peace is a lively introduction to one of the oldest but still most relevant ethical debates. Focusing on the philosophical questions surrounding (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  19.  89
    War and Ethics: A New Just War Theory.N. Fotion - 2007 - 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  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  20. Rethinking Realism (or Whatever) and the War on Terrorism in a Place Like the Balkans.Rory Conces - 2009 - Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. On the Ethics of War and Terrorism.Uwe Steinhoff - 2007 - 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  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  22. Complicitous Liability in War.Saba Bazargan - 2013 - 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  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  23. The Moral Equality of Modern Combatants and the Myth of Justified War.Uwe Steinhoff - 2012 - 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 (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24.  51
    War Crimes and Just War.Larry May - 2007 - 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. He shows that in a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  25.  84
    The Ethics of War.A. J. Coates - 1997 - 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 moral (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  26. What's A Just War Theorist?Aleksandar Jokic - 2012 - 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 (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27. The Logical Structure of Just War Theory.Christopher Toner - 2010 - 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  28. Putting the War Back in Just War Theory: A Critique of Examples.Rigstad Mark - 2017 - Ethical Perspectives 24 (1):123-144.
    Analytic just war theorists often attempt to construct ideal theories of military justice on the basis of intuitions about imaginary and sometimes outlandish examples, often taken from (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. Honor War Theory: Romance or Reality?Daniel Demetriou - 2013 - Philosophical Papers 42 (3):285 - 313.
    Just War Theory (JWT) replaced an older "warrior code," 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 "Honor War Theory" (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  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  30. Unjust War and a Soldier's Moral Dilemma.Jeff Montrose - 2013 - Journal of Military Ethics 12 (4):325-340.
    This paper explores the central question of why soldiers in democratic societies might decide to fight in wars that they may have reason to believe are objectively (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  31.  19
    Moral Dilemmas of Modern War: Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict.Michael L. Gross - 2009 - Cambridge University Press.
    Asymmetric conflict is changing the way that we practise and think about war. Torture, rendition, assassination, blackmail, extortion, direct attacks on civilians, and chemical weapons are all (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  32. The Morality and Law of War.Seth Lazar - 2012 - In Andrei Marmor (ed.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Law. Routledge. pp. 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  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  33. What Is WarAnd Can a Lone Individual Wage One?Uwe Steinhoff - 2009 - 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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  34. Just War Theory, Legitimate Authority, and Irregular Belligerency.Jonathan Parry - 2015 - 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  35. Rethinking 'Rape as a Weapon of War'.Doris E. Buss - 2009 - 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  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  36.  34
    Law and Morality at War.Adil Ahmad Haque - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):79-97.
    Through a critical engagement with Jeremy Waldrons work, as well as the work of other writers, I offer an account of the relative scope of the (...)morality of war, the laws of war, and war crimes. I propose an instrumentalist account of the laws of war, according to which the laws of war should help soldiers conform to the morality of war. The instrumentalist account supports Waldrons conclusion that the laws of war justifiably prohibit attacks on civilians even if it turns out that some civilians lack a moral right not to be killed. Importantly, the instrumentalist account also offers what Waldron thinks impossible: a non-consequentialist defense of the failure of the laws of war to prohibit the killing of nonthreatening combatants. Finally, I argue that new war crimes can be broader than the morality of war as well as established laws of war and that many of the arguments for defining war crimes more narrowly than either the morality of war or the laws of war are unconvincing. In all of these ways, I hope to carry forward Waldrons project of exploring the relationship between law and morality in war. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  37. Romantics at War: Glory and Guilt in the Age of Terrorism.George P. Fletcher - 2002 - 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  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  38.  64
    Ethics, Killing and War.Richard Norman - 1995 - 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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  39.  20
    Impure Agency and the Just War.Rosemary B. Kellison - 2015 - 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  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  40. Michael Walzer's Just War Theory: Some Issues of Responsibility[REVIEW]Igor Primoratz - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (2):221-243.
    In his widely influential statement of just war theory, Michael Walzer exempts conscripted soldiers from all responsibility for taking part in war, whether just or unjust (the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  41. Mandatory Minimums and the War on Drugs.Daniel Wodak - 2018 - In David Boonin (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy. Palgrave.
    Mandatory minimum sentencing provisions have been a feature of the U.S. justice system since 1790. But they have expanded considerably under the war on drugs, and (...)their use has expanded considerably under the Trump Administration; some states are also poised to expand drug-related mandatory minimums further in efforts to fight the current opioid epidemic. In this paper I outline and evaluate three prominent arguments for and against the use of mandatory minimums in the war on drugsthey appeal, respectively, to proportionality, consistency, and efficiency. I ultimately defend the view that the use of mandatory minimums in the war on drugs is unjust. -/- . (shrink)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  89
    From Nomos to Hegung: Sovereignty and the Laws of War in Schmitts International Order.Johanna Jacques - 2015 - The Modern Law Review 78 (3):411-430.
    Carl Schmitt's notion of nomos is commonly regarded as the international equivalent to the national sovereign's decision on the exception. But can concrete spatial order alone (...) turn a constellation of forces into an international order? This article looks at Schmitt's work The Nomos of the Earth and proposes that it is the process of bracketing war called Hegung which takes the place of the sovereign in the international order Schmitt describes. Beginning from an analysis of nomos, the ordering function of the presocratic concept moira is explored. It is argued that the process of Hegung, like moira, does not just achieve the containment of war, but constitutes the condition of possibility for plural order. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  43.  28
    The Cold War Context of the Golden Jubilee, Or, Why We Think of Mendel as the Father of Genetics.Audra J. Wolfe - 2012 - 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  44.  84
    Taking War Seriously.Charles Blattberg - 2019 - Philosophy 94 (1):139-60.
    Just war theoryas advanced by Michael Walzer, among othersfails to take war seriously enough. This is because it proposes that we regulate war with (...)systematic rules that are comparable to those of a game. Three types of claims are advanced. The first is phenomenological: that the theory's abstract nature interferes with our judgment of what is, and should be, going on. The second is meta-ethical: that the theory's rules are not, in fact, systematic after all, there being inherent contradictions between them. And the third is practical: that by getting people to view war as like a game, the theory promotes itsaestheticization’ (play being a central mode of the aesthetic) such that those who fight are encouraged to act in dangerous ways. And war, it goes without saying, is already dangerous enough. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45.  27
    Ethics for Enemies: Terror, Torture, and War.F. M. Kamm (ed.) - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
    Ethics for Enemies comprises three original philosophical essays on torture, terrorism, and war. F. M. Kamm deploys ethical theory in her challenging new treatments of these most (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  46.  23
    Necessity in SelfDefense and War.Seth Lazar - 2012 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 40 (1):3-44.
    The necessity constraint is at the heart of the ethics of both self-defense and war, and yet we know little about it. This article seeks to (...)remedy that defect. It proceeds in two stages: first, an analysis of the concept of necessity in self-defense; second, an application of this analysis to war, looking at both its implications for just war theory and its application in the laws of war. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  47. The Disastrous War Against Terrorism: Violence Versus Enlightenment.Nicholas Maxwell - 2007 - 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 (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  48. When May Soldiers Participate in War?Uwe Steinhoff - 2016 - International Theory 8 (2):262-296.
    I shall argue that in some wars both sides are (as a collective) justified, that is, they can both satisfy valid jus ad bellum requirements. Moreover, in (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. When Is It Right to Fight? Just War Theory and the Individual-Centric Approach.James Pattison - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):35-54.
    Recent work in the ethics of war has done much to challenge the collectivism of the convention-based, Walzerian just war theory. In doing so, it raises (...)the question of when it is permissible for soldiers to resort to force. This article considers this issue and, in doing so, argues that the rejection of collectivism in just war should go further still. More specifically, it defends theIndividual-Centric Approachto the deep morality of war, which asserts that the justifiability of an individuals contribution to the war, rather than the justifiability of the war more generally, determines the moral acceptability of their participation. It then goes on to present five implications of the Individual-Centric Approach, including for individual liability to attack in war. (shrink)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  50. The Bureaucratization of War: Moral Challenges Exemplified by the Covert Lethal Drone.Richard Adams & Chris Barrie - 2013 - 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  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 1000