Killing in WarKilling a person is in general among the most seriously wrongful forms of action, yet most of us accept that it can be permissible to kill people on a large scale in war. Does morality become more permissive in a state of war? Jeff McMahan argues that conditions in war make no difference to what morality permits and the justifications for killing people are the same in war as they are in other contexts, such as individual self-defence. This view is radically at odds with the traditional theory of the just war and has implications that challenge common sense views. McMahan argues, for example, that it is wrong to fight in a war that is unjust because it lacks a just cause. |
Contents
| 1 | |
2 Arguments for the Moral Equality of Combatants | 38 |
3 Excuses | 104 |
4 Liability and the Limits of SelfDefense | 155 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
accept achievement agent argued argument believe bellum bomb child soldiers commanded to fight consent criminal Culpable Threat defensive action defensive attack degree duress enemy combatants epistemically justified equality of combatants example fought fully excused impermissible inflicted innocent bystander innocent civilians innocent person Innocent Threats institutions intentionally killing Jeff McMahan jus ad bellum jus in bello kill an innocent kill innocent law of war legitimate targets lesser evil liable to attack liable to defensive means Michael Walzer moral equality morally innocent morally liable morally required morally responsible Nazi Nonresponsible Threat objective account objectively justified objectively wrongful one’s Partially Excused Threats participation perhaps permitted political pose a threat presumption prevent principle proportionality requirement punishment refusal to fight relevant requirement of discrimination risk seems self-defense sense side effect Suppose symmetrical defense threaten unjust cause unjust combatants unjust war unjust wars Walzer wide proportionality wrongful harm wrongful threat