The Moral Equality of Combatants – A Doctrine in Classical Just War Theory? A Response to Graham Parsons

Reichberg, Gregory M.

doi:10.1080/15027570.2013.818405

Cited by 39 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 2 The claim that this view is the traditional one might surprise many readers who have become accustomed to associating Michael Walzer’s doctrine of the moral equality of combatants with ‘the orthodox view’ and who think that Jeff McMahan’s account is ‘revisionary.’ However, for a defense of this claim, and for an overview of its history and pertinent references, see Steinhoff (2012a, section 2). For further corroboration of this interpretation of the tradition see also Ryan (2011, 13–18) and Reichberg (2013a). …”

mentioning

confidence: 66%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When may soldiers participate in war?

Steinhoff

2016

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:I shall argue that in some wars both sides are (as a collective) justified, that is, they can both satisfy valid jus ad bellum requirements. Moreover, in some wars -but not in allthe individual soldiers on the unjustified side (that is, on the side without jus ad bellum) may nevertheless kill soldiers (and also civilians as a side-effect) on the justified side, even if the enemy soldiers always abide by jus in bello constraints. The reason for this is that with regard to some forms of inflicting harm on others one may give special weight to one's own interests and the interests of those to whom one has special responsibilities when assessing the proportionality of those acts. That is, the proportionality calculation may be agent-relative. This is in particular so in the case of foreseeably preventing innocent and non-threatening people from being saved (for instance, by shooting down a tactical bomber who would have saved them by destroying an ammunitions factory) but less so in the case of the intentional or foreseeable direct harming of innocent and nonthreatening people (dropping bombs on people standing near an ammunitions factory). In the light of these considerations, I will then answer the question as to when soldiers may justifiably participate in war (and when not).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 66%

“…However, for a defense of this claim, and for an overview of its history and pertinent references, see Steinhoff (2012a, section 2). For further corroboration of this interpretation of the tradition see also Ryan (2011, 13-18) and Reichberg (2013a). 3 Its most prominent proponent is of course Walzer (2000, 34-41).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

When may soldiers participate in war?

Steinhoff

2016

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gregory Reichberg's (2013) response to me does not raise doubts about my immediate concerns with McMahan's theory. Rather, Reichberg criticizes my interpretation of the classical just war theorists, arguing that they could not (and do not) defend the moral equality of combatants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

What is the Classical Theory of Just Cause? a Response to Reichberg

Parsons

2013

Journal of Military Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…8 Notice that Proportionality is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for permissibility. 9 Though see Reichberg [2013]. 10 This, in turn, drew on a tradition of international law going back at least to the St Petersburg Declaration of 1868.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Revisionist Critique of Just War Theory

Lazar

2017

Daedalus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern analytical just war theory starts with Michael Walzer's defense of key tenets of the laws of war in his Just and Unjust Wars. Walzer advocates noncombatant immunity, proportionality, and combatant equality: combatants in war must target only combatants; unintentional harms that they inflict on noncombatants must be proportionate to the military objective secured; and combatants who abide by these principles fight permissibly, regardless of their aims. In recent years, the revisionist school of just war theory, led by Jeff McMahan, has radically undermined Walzer's defense of these principles. This essay situates Walzer's and the revisionists’ arguments, before illustrating the disturbing vision of the morality of war that results from revisionist premises. It concludes by showing how broadly Walzerian conclusions can be defended using more reliable foundations.

show abstract

The Moral Equality of Combatants – A Doctrine in Classical Just War Theory? A Response to Graham Parsons

Cited by 39 publications

References 11 publications

When may soldiers participate in war?

When may soldiers participate in war?

What is the Classical Theory of Just Cause? a Response to Reichberg

Evaluating the Revisionist Critique of Just War Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About