Contractarianism and the Moral Equality of Combatants

2019 ◽  
pp. 116-132
Author(s):  
Yitzhak Benbaji ◽  
Daniel Statman
Keyword(s):  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

The purpose of this chapter is to offer a contractarian defence of Moral Equality, the thesis that Just and Unjust Combatants do not wrong each other when they kill and maim each other in war. We concede that the killings of Just Combatants by Unjust Combatants is pre-contractually impermissible. Moral Equality is nevertheless true if an agreement between states that equalize the legal standing of soldiers is fair and also mutually beneficial. By accepting such an agreement, combatants attain a right to take advantage of traditional jus in bello rules, thereby violating no duty against Just Combatants by attacking them.

scholarly journals War and post-truth: Moral equality of combatants and inculpable ignorance in just war theory

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 111-122
Author(s):  
Dragan Stanar
Keyword(s):  
Moral Status ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

This paper aims to explain the effect of the post-truth on revisionism in Just War Theory. Revisionism in JWT is based on the claim that Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello cannot be separated and that only combatants who fight on the just side are morally justified in killing. Presupposition of this argument is that combatants can and ought to know the moral status of their side. This paper will demonstrate that it is impossible to demand combatants to know whether their side is just by investigating the implications of post-truth in modern conflicts. By demonstrating the practical impossibility of combatants to know whether their side is just, author will show that the assumption of inculpable ignorance in war must remain the essence of JWT. Posttruth phenomenon only fortifies the necessity of separating Jus ad Bellum from Jus in Bello and upholding the principle of moral equality of combatants in contemporary wars.

scholarly journals Contemporary Issues in Jus in Bello: Some Problems Raised by Jeff McMahan's Killing in War

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Simon William Bunckenburg
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Jeff Mcmahan ◽  
Intentional Attack ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

<p>The work of Jeff McMahan has revitalised discussion of just war theory with its rejection of the moral equality of combatants. The main aim of this thesis is to explore and develop McMahan’s work and recent challenges to it. I do this in four chapters. First, I outline McMahan’s account of liability to attack which subsequently shows why the moral equality of combatants is false. I defend his account of liability to attack from problems raised by Yitzhak Benbaji and Thomas Hurka. Second, I discuss developments by McMahan to the in bello condition of proportionality. I suggest that the features McMahan introduces, though innovative, do not go far enough and ultimately argue for David Rodin’s multi-factor account. Third, I defend Seth Lazar’s responsibility dilemma from objections by McMahan and Bradley Strawser. Fourth, I combine McMahan’s understanding of responsibility with Tony Honoré’s outcome responsibility and after establishing an account of collective responsibility argue that unjust noncombatants can be liable to intentional attack due to being collectively outcome responsible for the threat their state poses in war.</p>

scholarly journals Contemporary Issues in Jus in Bello: Some Problems Raised by Jeff McMahan's Killing in War

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Simon William Bunckenburg
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Jeff Mcmahan ◽  
Intentional Attack ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

<p>The work of Jeff McMahan has revitalised discussion of just war theory with its rejection of the moral equality of combatants. The main aim of this thesis is to explore and develop McMahan’s work and recent challenges to it. I do this in four chapters. First, I outline McMahan’s account of liability to attack which subsequently shows why the moral equality of combatants is false. I defend his account of liability to attack from problems raised by Yitzhak Benbaji and Thomas Hurka. Second, I discuss developments by McMahan to the in bello condition of proportionality. I suggest that the features McMahan introduces, though innovative, do not go far enough and ultimately argue for David Rodin’s multi-factor account. Third, I defend Seth Lazar’s responsibility dilemma from objections by McMahan and Bradley Strawser. Fourth, I combine McMahan’s understanding of responsibility with Tony Honoré’s outcome responsibility and after establishing an account of collective responsibility argue that unjust noncombatants can be liable to intentional attack due to being collectively outcome responsible for the threat their state poses in war.</p>

Excuses for the Moral Equality of Combatants

Analysis ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 512-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Lang
Keyword(s):  
Moral Equality ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

scholarly journals Defeating Ignorance – Ius ad Bellum Heuristics for Modern Professional Soldiers

Diametros ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Maciej Marek Zając
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Deployment ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
Invincible Ignorance ◽  
Practical Recommendations ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants

Just War Theory debates discussing the principle of the Moral Equality of Combatants (MEC) involve the notion of Invincible Ignorance; the claim that warfi ghters are morally excused for participating in an unjust war because of their epistemic limitations. Conditions of military deployment may indeed lead to genuinely insurmountable epistemic limitations. In other cases, these may be overcome. This paper provides a preliminary sketch of heuristics designed to allow a combatant to judge whether or not his war is just. It delineates the sets of relevant facts uncontroversially accessible and inaccessible to contemporary professional soldiers. Relevant facts outside these two sets should by default be treated as inaccessible until proven otherwise. Even such a rudimentary heuristic created in this way demonstrates that practical recommendations of MEC-renouncing Just War Theory are not too challenging to follow and still signifi cantly impact a compliant combatant’s behavior.

The Condemnation-Absolution Syndrome: Issues of Validity and Generality

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-471
Author(s):  
Robert O. Keohane
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Just War ◽  
Moral Equality ◽  
National Attitudes ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Moral Equality Of Combatants ◽  
Cross National

AbstractIn their article “Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants,” Scott Sagan and Benjamin Valentino argue that the American public evaluates soldiers’ wartime actions more according to whether the war they are fighting was initiated justly, than on their actions during warfare. In this respect, their views are more similar to those of revisionist philosophers than to those of traditional just war theorists. Before leaping to broad conclusions from their survey, it should be replicated. If the findings hold in the replication, intriguing questions could be asked about comparative cross-national attitudes and about the relationship between democracy and war.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document