Discrimination
Content
Arguments against Realism
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment.
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest"
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest" a. Ethical nationalism analogous to egoism b. Same problems as egoism
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest" a. Ethical nationalism analogous to egoism b. Same problems as egoism i. A leader is obligated to prevent the opposing leader from doing the right thing
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest" a. Ethical nationalism analogous to egoism b. Same problems as egoism i. A leader is obligated to prevent the opposing leader from doing the right thing ii. Hobbes' state of nature: If there are no rules, no one's interest is satisfied
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest" a. Ethical nationalism analogous to egoism b. Same problems as egoism i. A leader is obligated to prevent the opposing leader from doing the right thing ii. Hobbes' state of nature: If there are no rules, no one's interest is satisfied 4. Two wrongs don't make a right
Jus in bello Justice in war
Jus in bello Justice in war Targets
Jus in bello Justice in war Targets Weapons
Jus in bello Justice in war Targets Weapons Tactics
Discrimination
General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership.
Discrimination
General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
Discrimination
General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Weak formulation: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is never permitted.
Discrimination
General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Weak formulation: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is never permitted. Strong formulation: All possible measures must be taken to avoid harm to noncombatants, even if it means greater risk to soldiers.
Discrimination General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Weak formulation: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is never permitted. Strong formulation: All possible measures must be taken to avoid harm to noncombatants, even if it means greater risk to soldiers. Utilitarian justification: Targeting noncombatants produces harm for no good. Alternative is total war.
Discrimination General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Weak formulation: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is never permitted. Strong formulation: All possible measures must be taken to avoid harm to noncombatants, even if it means greater risk to soldiers. Utilitarian justification: Targeting noncombatants produces harm for no good. Alternative is total war.
Kantian justification: Combatants make combat their own end. Targeting them respects them as ends in themselves. Not so for noncombatants.
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers.
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts.
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers?
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics?
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers?
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers? Walzer: Distinguish by support function.
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers? Walzer: Distinguish by support function. Supporting soldier as fighter: combatant
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers? Walzer: Distinguish by support function. Supporting soldier as fighter: combatant Supporting soldier as generic human: noncombatant
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers? Walzer: Distinguish by support function. Supporting soldier as fighter: combatant Supporting soldier as generic human: noncombatant Would the person perform the same function if there were no military?
Some Problems Must we distinguish between combatants and noncombatants in a guerilla war / insurgency?
Some Problems Must we distinguish between combatants and noncombatants in a guerilla war / insurgency? Can the use of nuclear weapons ever obey the principle of discrimination?
Some Problems Must we distinguish between combatants and noncombatants in a guerilla war / insurgency? Can the use of nuclear weapons ever obey the principle of discrimination?
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment.
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest"
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest" a. Ethical nationalism analogous to egoism b. Same problems as egoism
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest" a. Ethical nationalism analogous to egoism b. Same problems as egoism i. A leader is obligated to prevent the opposing leader from doing the right thing
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest" a. Ethical nationalism analogous to egoism b. Same problems as egoism i. A leader is obligated to prevent the opposing leader from doing the right thing ii. Hobbes' state of nature: If there are no rules, no one's interest is satisfied
Arguments against Realism 1. War is not a natural catastrophe that plunges people into an unexpected desperate situation: it is an intentional activity. Any intentional activity is subject to moral judgment. 2. Analogy with attempted murder a. Survival never at stake b. Self-defense doesn't require abandoning morality 3. "Self-restraint is wrong because it's against national interest" a. Ethical nationalism analogous to egoism b. Same problems as egoism i. A leader is obligated to prevent the opposing leader from doing the right thing ii. Hobbes' state of nature: If there are no rules, no one's interest is satisfied 4. Two wrongs don't make a right
Jus in bello Justice in war
Jus in bello Justice in war Targets
Jus in bello Justice in war Targets Weapons
Jus in bello Justice in war Targets Weapons Tactics
Discrimination
General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership.
Discrimination
General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
Discrimination
General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Weak formulation: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is never permitted.
Discrimination
General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Weak formulation: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is never permitted. Strong formulation: All possible measures must be taken to avoid harm to noncombatants, even if it means greater risk to soldiers.
Discrimination General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Weak formulation: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is never permitted. Strong formulation: All possible measures must be taken to avoid harm to noncombatants, even if it means greater risk to soldiers. Utilitarian justification: Targeting noncombatants produces harm for no good. Alternative is total war.
Discrimination General meaning: classifying people into groups and according them different treatment based on their group membership. One must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Weak formulation: Deliberately targeting noncombatants is never permitted. Strong formulation: All possible measures must be taken to avoid harm to noncombatants, even if it means greater risk to soldiers. Utilitarian justification: Targeting noncombatants produces harm for no good. Alternative is total war.
Kantian justification: Combatants make combat their own end. Targeting them respects them as ends in themselves. Not so for noncombatants.
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers.
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts.
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers?
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics?
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers?
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers? Walzer: Distinguish by support function.
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers? Walzer: Distinguish by support function. Supporting soldier as fighter: combatant
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers? Walzer: Distinguish by support function. Supporting soldier as fighter: combatant Supporting soldier as generic human: noncombatant
Who is a combatant? Uniformed armed volunteers. Uniformed armed conscripts. Support personnel. Munitions workers? Medics? Farmers? Walzer: Distinguish by support function. Supporting soldier as fighter: combatant Supporting soldier as generic human: noncombatant Would the person perform the same function if there were no military?
Some Problems Must we distinguish between combatants and noncombatants in a guerilla war / insurgency?
Some Problems Must we distinguish between combatants and noncombatants in a guerilla war / insurgency? Can the use of nuclear weapons ever obey the principle of discrimination?
Some Problems Must we distinguish between combatants and noncombatants in a guerilla war / insurgency? Can the use of nuclear weapons ever obey the principle of discrimination?
