PHILOS 3P03 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Jus Ad Bellum, Harm Principle, Desertion
14 Mar 2016
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Not just summarizing what was said, explain but not to describe- reconstruct. You can be the aggressor and nevertheless fight justly. Ppl say if you ha(cid:448)e(cid:374)"t (cid:373)et the jus ad (cid:271)ellu(cid:373) (cid:396)e(cid:395)ui(cid:396)e(cid:373)e(cid:374)ts (cid:894)o(cid:374) the agg(cid:396)essi(cid:448)e side(cid:895) you (cid:272)a(cid:374)"t. Jus ad bellum & jus in bello are completely separate meet the jus in bello requirements (fighting the war justly) Duty to discriminate: attack only legitimate targets. Harm principle: anyone/thing engaged in harming is a legitimate target. Both sides are killing, anyone who is involved in anything that harms is a target. All soldiers irrespective of jab are legitimate targets. Moral inequality: only soldiers in violation of jab are legit targets. Soldiers can/should be held accountable for their part in wars that violate jab. Soldiers are not qualified to assess justice of wars. Ignorance is an excuse, it does not justify the use of force. When conscription is involved it is much more likely that coercion is involve.
