NEW DIRECTIONS IN THEORIZING MORAL INJURY AND JUST WAR

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 438-441
Author(s):  
Shannon Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Lundberg

Setting just war reasoning into its broader context, this chapter begins by examining the logic, weight, and dangers of the “realist” traditions of Christian ethics, especially Augustine, Niebuhr, and Bonhoeffer (one often acclaimed as martyr though implicated in violent resistance). It shows how Protestant theologies of “vocation” typically sanction the sword-bearing occupations of magistrate, soldier, and law enforcement official as potentially consistent with Christian discipleship and holiness. Recent discussions of “moral injury” in soldiers are considered in relation to this “calling” of sword-bearing for the common good. In dialogue with Roman Catholicism, the chapter elaborates a Protestant conception of sainthood that acknowledges the ambiguity of the world, a conception that occasions a return to the criteria identifying Christian martyrdom.


The Good Kill ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 148-184
Author(s):  
Marc LiVecche

Chapter 5 defends against the challenge that the attitudinal requirements the just war tradition demands of just warriors are so severe as to be impracticable in actual combat, thus rendering moral injury practically unavoidable, even if in principle unnecessary. Against more extreme forms of dehumanization, callousness—the thickening of one’s skin—is presented as an important moral insulation for the warfighter, even as a martial virtue. Pushing against a popular taxonomy of four “images of the enemy” (perceived as the only possible ways that warfighters view those they war against and each of which is incompatible with the just war tradition), a fifth image is identified—that of the mournful warrior. Articulating the common-sense distinction between grief and guilt, this image is shown to be both compatible with the just war attitudinal mandate and regularly employed by warfighters in actual combat.


The Good Kill ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 185-202
Author(s):  
Marc LiVecche

The book concludes by acknowledging that while just war realism provides resources for overcoming guilt, it simultaneously recognizes war’s inherent tragedy. Human beings rarely act with absolute purity of intention. It is here that the distinction between moral injury and moral bruising comes back into view. It is entirely likely—possibly even desired—that while warfighters can pass through the battlefield without suffering moral injury, they cannot, in fact, emerge without impact traumas of some kind. Therefore, this conclusion points to the need for social and institutional practices for the moral treatment of returning warfighters.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Morkevičius

AbstractJust war thinking serves a social and psychological role that international law cannot fill. Law is dispassionate and objective, while just war thinking accounts for emotions and the situatedness of individuals. While law works on us externally, making us accountable to certain people and institutions, just war thinking affects us internally, making us accountable to ourselves. Psychologically, an external focus leads to feelings of shame, while an inward focus generates feelings of guilt. Philosophers have long recognized the importance of these two moral emotions. Recently, psychologists have found that feelings of guilt are linked to positive social outcomes, such as the desire for reconciliation and reparation, while shame generates anger and hostility. Just war thinking, as an inward-looking tradition, has a special relationship with guilt. By focusing on moral emotions, just war thinking can move beyond the law in four ways, by developing an ethic of accountability, by providing a foundation for addressing moral injury, by providing a common language for discussing the costs of war, and for identifying ethical problems in radically new contexts.


2020 ◽  
pp. 79-92
Author(s):  
Robert Emmet Meagher
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  

Author(s):  
Marc LiVecche ◽  
Timothy S. Mallard

The Good Kill examines killing in war in its moral and normative dimension. It argues against the commonplace belief, often tacitly held if not consciously asserted, among academics, the general public, and even military professionals, that killing, including in a justified war, is always morally wrong even when necessary. In light of an increasingly sophisticated understanding of combat trauma, this belief is a crisis. Moral injury, a proposed subset of posttraumatic stress disorder, occurs when one does something that goes against deeply held normative convictions. In a military context, the primary predictor of moral injury is having killed in combat. In turn, the primary predictor for suicide among combat veterans is moral injury. In this way, the assertion that killing is wrong but in war it is necessary becomes deadly, rendering the very business of the profession of arms morally injurious. It does not need to be this way. Beginning with the simple observation—recognized by both common sense and law—that killing comes in different kinds, this book equips warfighters and those charged with their care and formation with confidence in the rectitude of certain kinds of killing. Engaging with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Ramsey, Nigel Biggar, and other leading Christian realists, crucial normative principles within the just war tradition are brought to bear on questions regarding just conduct in war, moral and nonmoral evil, and enemy love. The Good Kill helps equip the just warrior to navigate the morally bruising field of battle without becoming irreparably morally injured.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Van Bergen ◽  
John Sutton

Abstract Sociocultural developmental psychology can drive new directions in gadgetry science. We use autobiographical memory, a compound capacity incorporating episodic memory, as a case study. Autobiographical memory emerges late in development, supported by interactions with parents. Intervention research highlights the causal influence of these interactions, whereas cross-cultural research demonstrates culturally determined diversity. Different patterns of inheritance are discussed.


Addiction ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 92 (11) ◽  
pp. 1411-1422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony P. Shakeshaft ◽  
Jenny A. Bowman ◽  
Rob W. Sanson-Fisher
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document