Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
UTSG (50,000)
PHL (1,000)
Lecture 13

LEC13 – Proportionality and Necessity Oct 22 2009


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHL378H1
Professor
Tom Hurka
Lecture
13

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
PHL378: War and Morality
LEC13 Proportionality & Necessity
Oct, 22nd, 2009
Economic Benefits of War
! in order to end depression, it is the the process of trying to get the JC that ends the depression,
and not the JC itself
! Suppose Iraq had invaded several oil producing countries for no apparent reason, and after this
it puts a monopoly on oil and increase the world oil price, should we go to war with Iraq, and
what are the relevant benefits, does economic benefit count as a relevant benefit?
! in the Iraq hypothetical case, it is the JC that achieves the economic benefits, hence this should
be counted in favour of the war
! in proportionality weighting, only the benefits which are causally downstream from the JC are
counted and not benefits derived from the process of achieving the JC
! in the Oslo peace agreement case, we also should not use that in proportionality b/c the
agreement came about through the process of achieving the JC and not expelling Sadam himself
! if by outsting Sadam, we have less suicide bombers b/c the government is no longer paying for
bomber's families. This should count as a relevant good, b/c the goods are causally downstream
from the achieving the JC
Proportionality
! Hurka: the in bello proportionality condition is weighted based on how important the ad bellum
condition of JC is
! this is direct contrast to Waltzer's view, and says that jus ad bellum and jus in bello are not
distinct entities, in bello depends on ad bellum
! thus a war can only be fought just if it had a just cause to begin with
! additional protocol #1: attacks are forbidden, if they harm civilians collaterally which are
excessive in proportion to the direct military advantage anticipated
this supports the Waltzer view, applies equally to both sides
Relevant Evils
! few restrictions on the relevant evils
! thumb pressed down on the scale, there is a restricted set of goods that count, but most evils
count
! the feelings of citizens on the side of the losing does not count as a relevant evil
! there may be restriction on how it comes about, how much evil our act will cause depends on
the wrongful choices of the other side
! this does not apply to the goods of war
! take the case of deterrence, if we fight a war now, it has the good effect of deterring future
aggressors, but that is dependent on whether the would be aggressors will initiate war in the
future; the fact the good depends on the other party's actions does not make us count the
good any less in proportionality measurement
! if b/w my choice and a bad outcome, there intervenes a third party and agent, then my
responsibility for the bad outcome will decrease
! there is an enemy military installation, and civilians voluntarily place them self infront of the
installation prior to our attack to impede us from attacking due to proportionality assessment
we are still permitted to attack it b..c they were voluntary
! pg. 47-48: same scenario as above but with involuntary civilians who were placed due to
government
www.notesolution.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version