Complicitous liability in war

Bazargan, Saba

doi:10.1007/s11098-012-9927-2

Cited by 23 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As before, we can advance nonreductivist arguments for revisionist conclusions (Bazargan 2013) and reductivist arguments for traditionalism (Steinhoff 2008, Lazar 2015. But the predominant dialectic has been the other way.…”

Section: The Methodology Of Just War Theorymentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists

Lazar

2017

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary just war theory is divided into two broad camps: revisionists and traditionalists. Traditionalists seek to provide moral foundations for something close to current international law, and in particular the laws of armed conflict. Although they propose improvements, they do so cautiously. Revisionists argue that international law is at best a pragmatic fiction-it lacks deeper moral foundations. In this article, I present the contemporary history of analytical just war theory, from the origins of contemporary traditionalist just war theory in Michael Walzer's work to the revisionist critique of Walzer and the subsequent revival of traditionalism. I discuss central questions of methodology, as well as consider the morality of resorting to war and the morality of conduct in war. I show that although the revisionists exposed philosophical shortcomings in Walzer's arguments, their radical conclusions should prompt us not to reject the broad contemporary consensus, but instead to seek better arguments to underpin it.

show abstract

Section: The Methodology Of Just War Theorymentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Many philosophers then sought to defend traditionalism by rejecting either descriptive (Kutz 2005, Walzer 2006b[1977, Lazar 2012b) or evaluative individualism (Zohar 1993). Again, of course some individualists defend traditionalism (Emerton & Handfield 2009), and some collectivists are revisionists (Bazargan 2013).…”

Section: The Methodology Of Just War Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists

Lazar

2017

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, citizens may be culpable for being complicit in the state's wrongs, despite not contributing (much) to those wrongs (Beerbohm, ; Pasternak, ). Or perhaps some citizens are complicit, while others are not (e.g., Bazargan, argues that soldiers, in particular, are culpable for their state's unjust wars via complicity).…”

Section: Are Citizens Responsible For What Their States Do?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility for states' actions: Normative issues at the intersection of collective agency and state responsibility

Lawford‐Smith

Collins

2017

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the state a collective agent? Are citizens responsible for what their states do? If not citizens, then who, if anyone, is responsible for what the state does? Many different sub‐disciplines of philosophy are relevant for answering these questions. We need to know what “the state” is, who or what it's composed of, and what relation the parts stand in to the whole. Once we know what it is, we need to know whether that thing is an agent, in particular a moral agent capable of taking moral responsibility for its actions. We have to know what it takes for it to be capable of moral responsibility, e.g., what the functional equivalents in groups (or in that kind of group in particular) are of knowledge, intention, foreseeability, recklessness, and so on. And once we've established that it is an agent, and is responsible for what it does, we have to explain whether and in what way this implicates members, i.e., whether state responsibility distributes to the (compositional) members of states, whoever they may be (“citizens” is one possibility, but there are many). Answers to these questions come from metaphysics, social ontology, action theory, epistemology, political theory, and ethics. In what follows, we'll give an outline of some different ways of answering these questions.

show abstract

“…Some have employed the idea of complicity to think about, for instance, the responsibility of soldiers for the harms caused by their state's military. 12 Others have used the concept to generate a weak membership condition for collective agency, and thereby joint responsibility for collectives' acts. 13 To diagnose unethical consumption in terms of complicity, we would take the principal offenders to be the corporations who run sweatshops, who purchase conflict minerals, who pay unfair prices for coffee and chocolate beans, and so on.…”

Section: Five Promising Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unethical Consumption and Obligations to Signal

Lawford‐Smith¹

2015

Ethics int. aff.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many different ways to try to bring about an end to the harms involved in the production of consumer goods. In this article I will start at the bottom, with the individual whose ordinary choices about how to travel, what to eat, what to wear, where to shop, and which policies to support all cause her to confront the possibility of involvement in these harms to the environment, nonhuman animals, and persons.Having dismissed the claim that an individual has a straightforward duty of justice not to consume unethically produced goods, in the second section I map out a few different approaches, all of which I take to be promising avenues for generating duties in individuals to consume ethically. I argue that the last approach is the most promising and spend the third section of this article developing it. Specifically, I argue that as a first step in collectivizing to act against unjust global labor practices, an individual ought to signal to others her commitments to ethical consumption. In section four I ask whether some signals are too cheap to function as a step toward collectivization, and defend the deliberate consumption of only ethically produced goods as a moderately costly and therefore reliable signal. In the last section I consider a challenge to the proposal in terms of whether it imposes unacceptable costs on consumers.

show abstract

Complicitous liability in war

Cited by 23 publications

References 13 publications

Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists

Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists

Responsibility for states' actions: Normative issues at the intersection of collective agency and state responsibility

Unethical Consumption and Obligations to Signal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About