On the possibility of justified subsistence wars

Peperkamp, Lonneke; Tinnevelt, Ronald

doi:10.4337/9781839102110.00014

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…59 See also Anthony Coady's (2007) observation that the concept of aggression is elastic and its edges fuzzy. 60 On this link between just war theory and global distributive justice see: Peperkamp and Tinnevelt (2021). not to harm is often considered to be more stringent than the duty not to allow harm, the "doing harm argument" that focuses on violated negative duties seems to be the most promising route to the justification of redistributive wars.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A just cause can be "any type of wrong that would reduce a person to utter destitution." 9 I will come back to this issue in Section 4, where I will discuss the risks of a certain way of generating those intuitions.10 This Section Builds on Earlier work:Peperkamp and Tinnevelt (2021);Peperkamp (2022).11 Luban here refers to Henry Shue's notion of subsistence rights(1996, 2008, 2010, 2013). Shue, interestingly, is a strong critic of McMahan's revisionist position.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Redistributive wars

Peperkamp

2023

Philosophia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can the global poor wage a just redistributive war against the global rich? The moral norms governing the use of force are usually considered to be very strict. Nonetheless, some philosophers have recently argued that violating duties of global justice can be a just cause for war. This paper discusses redistributive wars. It shows that the strength of these arguments is contingent on the underlying account of global distributive justice. The paper focuses on the “doing harm argument,” under the assumption that the alternative “allowing harm argument” is a more difficult route to justify redistributive wars. After highlighting several preliminary problems, the paper breaks down and assesses in depth the “doing harm argument”: the empirical premise, the rights violation that constitutes the wrong, liability and degrees of responsibility, and the conditions for justified self-defense. By drawing on principles reflected in criminal law, this paper argues that a general “doing harm argument” for redistributive wars is unconvincing, while a reinterpretation of that argument could theoretically give rise to a just cause for war.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Redistributive wars

Peperkamp

2023

Philosophia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, it has been suggested that food's importance to humanity even justifies war (see e.g. Peperkamp & Tinnevelt, 2021): by analogy, if any reasons could justify geoengineering, food related ones would be among the top candidates. We remind the reader, however, that food is not the only salient issue when discussing human rights and geoengineering: other climate change induced human rights violations (see e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Right to Food and Geoengineering

Kortetmäki

Oksanen

2023

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change poses grave risks to food security, and mitigation and adaptation actions have so far been insufficient to lessen the risk of climate-induced violations of the right to food. Could safeguarding the right to food, then, justify some forms of geoengineering? This article examines geoengineering through the analytical lens of the right to food. We look at the components of food security and consider how the acceptability of geoengineering relates to the right to food via its impacts on these components. Our examination shows that results vary greatly between different forms of geoengineering: while some forms of geoengineering fail to respect the right to food, certain other forms may even become obligatory to protect the right to food. It appears that there is no support for aerosol-based solar radiation management, whereas some carbon dioxide removal methods can help protect or promote the right to food. The ethical challenges related to carbon dioxide removal methods are, we note, similar to those that will also be faced in the course of climate change mitigation.

show abstract

On the possibility of justified subsistence wars

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Redistributive wars

Redistributive wars

Right to Food and Geoengineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About