First, fighting a war without authorization constitutes an additional wrong, which has to be weighed against the goods that fighting will bring about, and must pass the proportionality and necessity tests.
First, though, some methodological groundwork. Perhaps the current standard can be endorsed from within a wider range of overarching moral theories than could anything closer to the truth.
You can find your student contribution amount for each course at Fees. However, typically this is just a heuristic device; since we typically think of killing as the most presumptively wrongful kind of harm, whatever arguments one identifies that justify killing are likely also to justify lesser wrongs.
If legitimate authority is satisfied then additional positive reasons count in favour of fighting see below. We discuss the significance of intentional killing when considering proportionality, below.
That option is not available when considering particular actions within the war—one can only decide whether or not to perform this particular action.
Either way, states are much more likely to satisfy the legitimate authority condition than non-state actors. It is an open question how far into the future we have to look to assess the morally relevant consequences of conflict. If necessity and proportionality are satisfied, then the reasonable prospects of success standard is irrelevant.
And yet, given the likely path of climate change, the future might see resource wars grow in salience. Second, setting aside the law and focusing again on morality, many think that responsibility is crucial to thinking about proportionality, in the following way. But that argument seems oddly circular: The necessity and proportionality constraints have the same root: Typically, if a war lacks reasonable prospects of success, then it will be disproportionate, since wars always involve causing significant harms, and if those harms are likely to be pointless then they are unlikely to be justified.
Jus post bellum Review quote Praise for the previous edition: Necessity and proportionality judgements involve weighing harms inflicted and threats averted, indeed all relevant goods and bads.
In each case the answer is obvious: Last, in ordinary thinking about the morality of war, the two properties most commonly cited to explain the distinctive wrongfulness of harming civilians, after their innocence, are their vulnerability and their defencelessness. Instead we should weight harms etc.
This means, for example, deciding whether to aim to minimise all harm, or only to minimise wrongful harm. Non-contractualist deontologists and direct- or act-consequentialists tend to prefer the interactional approach.
Descriptive collectivists deny this, thinking that some acts are irreducibly collective. Lazar forthcoming-a suggests these arguments are unpersuasive.Description.
For Philosophy courses in applied ethics, just war theory, and international law. Classic introduction to the ethics of war and peace, exploring legal and moral issues of.
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 the ethics of modern war, Helen Frowe presents contemporary just war theory in 3/5(1).
Examining the most representative writings on the ethics of war, by a range of authors (Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Vitoria, Rousseau, Kant, Walzer, and others) in these different traditions and with application to contemporary issues (terrorism, humanitarian intervention, preventive war, etc.), is the principal aim of this course.
Jul 20, · History of war ethics History. The discussion of the ethics of war goes back to the Greeks and Romans, although neither civilisation behaved particularly well in war.
"The Ethics of War and Peace provides a clear and comprehensive guide to perspectives on morality and the use of force. Analysing the 'conditions of peace' as well as the ethics of war, it offers a powerful defence of 'cosmopolitan pacifism'.
This site examines issues of war and peace from an ethical standpoint informed by traditional just war thought.Download