The Post-Contemporaneity of War

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-263

The article summarizes material from the thematic issue of Logos on the study of war. The author notes that, contrary to Hannah Arendt’s prediction, it is wars rather than revolutions that accompany human social activity in the twenty-first century. And because war is such a ubiquitous phenomenon, philosophers have tried to gain an understanding of it. Despite the great variety of arguments about war, we can distinguish three theoretical discourses each focused on its own separate topic. The first discourse is an attempt to rehabilitate the military thought of Carl von Clausewitz, the first theorist of “modern” war; the second is the just war theory, which concentrates on issues of applied ethics (whether it is legitimate to start war, how to conduct warfare, what to do after the conflict, etc.); the third is the discussion on “new wars.” The author maintains that the second discourse is too instrumental and that the just war theoretical apparatus often lags behind the empirical realities. The first approach can at best be an abstract and theoretical one, but it is not by any means useful as an applied theory. Hence, the most important of these discourses for practical philosophy is the third one, that is, the debate about “new wars.” That is why developing and elucidating the theory and ¾ most important of all — the practice of new wars demands attention. The conclusion is that the social theory of (post)modernity would enrich the new wars discourse, and further areas for study are therefore mapped out.

Author(s):  
Charles Kimball

This chapter reviews the movement from pacifism to Just War and Crusade. It also tries to demonstrate the ways prominent Catholic and Protestant leaders have harshly used violent measures within their communities, and determines contemporary manifestations of these three approaches among twenty-first-century Christians. The Crusades constitute the third type of response to war and peace among Christians, joining the ongoing Just War and pacifist traditions. The Inquisition within the Catholic Church and the city-state of Geneva under John Calvin's leadership within the emerging Protestant movement are elaborated. These examples show how pervasive the use of violence in the name of religion had become. The Just Peacemaking Paradigm is the alternative to pacifism and Just War theory, an effort that tries to change the focus to initiatives which can help prevent war and foster peace.


Author(s):  
Paola Pugliatti

This chapter recounts how developments in the technology of battle had by Shakespeare’s time caught up with even the relatively resistant, cavalry-oriented English nobility. Outlining these technical advances, it discovers numerous moments in Shakespeare indicative of popular responsiveness to war and its new face. Alone among English writers, it was Shakespeare who (repeatedly) termed cannon-fire ‘devilish’; and the chapter demonstrates how different characters in 1Henry IV are on the turn in the long evolution from (equestrian) medieval chivalry, through (treacherous, infantry-deployed) gunpowder weapons, to the perfumed post-militarist courtier. It notes Shakespeare’s staged presentation of conscription as farcically at odds with the official theory of a voluntarism for able-bodied adults. Two soldiers miserably questioning the ethics of war the night before Agincourt prove well apprised of the Christian just war theory—yet Williams shrewdly contests its exculpation of royal leaders from responsibility for their subjects’ deaths.


Author(s):  
U. A. Padalinski

The article explores the biographies of Peter Kisel and Cimafiej Hurka, who represented the Viciebsk district at the Diet of 1569 and directly participated in the conclusion of the Union of Lublin. For a long time in historiography, attention was paid only to the most influential figures of this Diet. However, the simple, «unremarkable» representatives of the wide circles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’ nobility played their role in the negotiations on the union. Interests and ideas, conscious and values, and finally, the personal experience of these people directly determined their social and political position, and therefore, to one degree or another, the life of the entire state. The aim of research is to reflect the most important forms of social activity of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’ petty and middle nobility in the second half of the 16th century on the example of two Viciebsk noblemen’s unique destinies. It shows the influence of the military and political events of the 1560s on political activities of Peter Kisel and Cimafiej Hurka. The Livonian War’s experience definitely influenced their position on the conclusion of the union between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Kingdom in 1569. The author concludes that it was the cardinal transformations of the 1560s (state reforms, the establishment of the Commonwealth) that allowed them to actively participate in a public life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It also enabled Kisel and Hurka noble families to take a firm place among the political elite of the Viciebsk district for a long time. It is emphasized that a detailed study of «unremarkable» noblemen’s biographies provides advanced research of the noble estate of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.


Daedalus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 146 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth Lazar

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-180

The emergence of “new wars” in the second half of the twentieth century has changed the conventional paradigm for thinking about military conflicts and called into question the relevance of what previous theorists have offered. However, the most useful approach to the analysis of war is based on the widely accepted conceptual framework of the theory of just war, which is itself grounded in analytical ethics. The interpretations of just war theory by Michael Walzer, Nick Fotion, Brian Orend and Jeff McMahan are central to an ethical understanding of war, but they are of only limited value for considering the topic of “new wars,” which meanwhile are in constant flux. Philosophical thinking on these matters is failing keep pace with the transformation of the object it is considering. War is becoming a media phenomenon, a subject for futuristic speculation, and a routine reality for a number of countries and regions. It is losing its clear spatial and temporal contours, and although we are gaining greater control over its management and increasing the variety of forms that military conflicts take, we are losing control over the overall situation. War should be now seen as a complex phenomenon of social reality that demands a revision of the outdated and limited ethical supports that have been provided for this “necessary evil.” Military conflicts are among the images of modernity that must be apprehended in all their complexity.


Author(s):  
Janice H. Laurence ◽  
Joshua A. Carlisle

This chapter raises some ethical considerations and highlights the debate regarding the burgeoning field of human enhancement (HE) and performance optimization. The topic of human enhancement is complex because it gets to the heart of what we take to be the central concerns of ethics, involving concepts such as human nature, identity, fairness, dignity, virtue, and duties to our offspring and fellow beings. This chapter proposes a framework for discussing the ethics of human enhancement. It serves both as a structure for understanding current issues and debates and as a guide for stakeholders to use in making decisions about the ethics of particular HE interventions. In doing so, the ethical framework described borrows from Just War Theory (JWT), an adjacent field of applied ethics. Just Enhancement Theory (JET) provides key considerations that are necessary to argue that a particular HE intervention or class of interventions is morally permissible. Such a framework could help stakeholders navigate the complexities of the moral terrain as they make important decisions and contributions in this increasingly important area.


Author(s):  
Janina Dill

Just war theory (JWT) has undergone a radical revision over the last two decades. This chapter discusses the implications of this reformulation for the role of JWT in International Political Theory (IPT) and for JWT’s strategic usefulness. Revisionists’ consistent prioritization of individual rights means JWT now follows the strictures of justified violence according to contemporary IPT. At the same time, the collective nature of war makes it impossible for anyone but the omniscient attacker to properly protect individual rights and thus to directly implement revisionist prescriptions. I argue that revisionism is strategically relevant not in spite of, but because of this lack of practicability on the battlefield. It highlights the impossibility of waging war in accordance with widespread expectations of moral appropriateness, which largely follow the strictures of justified violence according to contemporary IPT. This is a crucial limitation to the political utility of force in twenty-first-century international relations.


Utilitas ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
CÉCILE FABRE

In his recent bookKilling in War, McMahan develops a powerful argument for the view that soldiers on opposite sides of a conflict are not morally on a par once the war has started: whether they have the right to kill depends on the justness of their war. In line with just war theory in general, McMahan scrutinizes the ethics of killing the enemy. In this article, I accept McMahan's account, but bring it to bear on the entirely neglected, but nevertheless interesting, issue of what the military call ‘blue-on-blue’ killings or, as I refer to such acts here, internecine war killings. I focus on the case of the soldier who is ordered by his officer, at gunpoint, to go into action or to kill innocent civilians, and who kills his officer in self-defence. I argue that, at the bar of McMahan's account of the right to kill in self-defence, the officer lacks a justification for attacking the soldier as a means of enforcing his order, and the soldier thus sometimes (but not always) has the right to kill his officer should the latter so act.


1990 ◽  
Vol 122 (2) ◽  
pp. 340-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Jackson

When Muslim forces under the Ghurid sultan, Mu'izz al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Sām, made their first major breakthrough into Hindūstān in the 1190s, they brought with them two institutions that had long since taken root in the Islamic world. One was the iqṭā' or assignment of land or its revenue, in some cases in return for military service (sometimes misrepresented as “fief” on the Western European model). The other was the mamlūk, or military slave. Mamlūk status, it should be stressed, bore none of the degrading connotations associated with other types of slavery: mamlūks – generally Turks from the Eurasian steppelands – were highly prized by their masters, receiving both instruction in the Islamic faith and a rigorous training in the martial arts, and were not employed in any menial capacity. The mamlūk institution, whose origins go back to the first century of Islam, came into vogue from the first half of the third/ninth century, as the ‘Abbasid Caliphs built up a corps of Turkish mamlūk guards and their example was followed, with the disintegration of their empire, by the various autonomous dynasties that sprang up in the provinces. Turkish slave officers themselves went on to found dynasties, as in the case of the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids in Egypt and the Ghaznawids in the eastern Iranian world. The institution surely entered upon its heyday in the seventh/thirteenth century, with the military coup of 648/1250 in Cairo: a group of mamlūk officers overthrew the last Ayyubid sultan of Egypt and inaugurated a regime in which slave status was the essential qualification for high military and administrative office.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document