The historical approach and the ‘war of ethics within the ethics of war’

Abstract

The Historical Approach and the 'War of Ethics within the Ethics of War' Christian Nikolaus Braun Contemporary just war thinking has mostly been split into two competing camps, namely Michael Walzer's approach and its revisionist critics. While Walzerians employ a casuistical method, most revisionists resort to analytical philosophy's reflective equilibrium. Importantly, besides employing different methods the two sides also disagree on substantive issues. This article focuses on one such issue, the moral equality of combatants, arguing that while a methodological reconciliation between the two camps is impossible contemporary debate would benefit from a 'third-way' approach. Presenting James Turner Johnson's historical method as such an approach the article suggests that while revisionists are correct in considering the symmetry thesis as ethically indefensible, in order to arrive at this judgement, it is not necessary to employ far-fetched thought experiments and the use of historical cases is preferable. The root cause of Walzer's problematic reasoning vis-à-vis the symmetry thesis, the historical approach reveals, is his uneasy relationship with the just war tradition. Contributing to a deeper understanding of the respective approaches' differences the article seeks to move the focus of contemporary just war away from a narrow intra-disciplinary divide and toward an engagement with substantive questions.

Restraining the fox: Minimalism in the ethics of war and peace

“…It is important to note, however, that with "traditionalism" they refer to Walzer's just war theory in their article, and not traditional just war theory as it developed throughout history (see also endnote 1). See further: Braun (2019), Braun (2017), Haque (2017), Lazar (2017), Levkowitz (2020), Pattison (2018), Steinhoff (2021), Walzer (2006. 9.…”

Peace as a Minor, Grounded Utopia: On Prefigurative and Testimonial Pacifism

“…See Frazer and Hutchings 2008;Kawash 1999;Tronto 2004. 4 On these two strands within just war thinking, see Braun 2018;Lazar 2017;O'Driscoll 2013. 5 This suspicion has a long history: Immanuel Kant (2006, 79) denounced the founding fathers of modern just war theory, Hugo Grotius, Samuel Pufendorf, and Emer de Vattel, as "tiresome comforters."…”

Just war and the question of authority

“…In actual fact, he argues for certain "rules of disregard" (2015, p. 86). However, as I have demonstrated elsewhere (Braun 2018), Walzer starts his moral argument from that paradigm which, at times, lets him blur the line between moral and legal argument.…”

“…Likewise, criticising the revisionist understanding of sovereignty from a Thomistic angle does not mean that there can be no common ground between the two approaches. For example, when revisionists object to Walzer's arguments for a logical separation between jus ad bellum and jus in bello or his defence of a "moral equality of combatants" revisionists arrive at essentially the same conclusions Aquinas had made many centuries earlier (cf., e. g., Braun 2018).…”