Class Notes (905,090)
CA (538,354)
UTSG (45,721)
PHL (1,576)
PHL378H1 (23)
Tom Hurka (23)
Lecture 16

LEC16 – Discrimination Nov 3 2009

2 Pages
77 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHL378H1
Professor
Tom Hurka

This preview shows half of the first page. Sign up to view the full 2 pages of the document.
PHL378: War and Morality
LEC16 Discrimination
Nov, 3rd, 2009
Waltzer
! combatants are moral targets and non-combatants are not
! this is b/c while everyone started off with rights to not be killed some ppl lost their rights
! soldiers lose right to be killed but also gain right to kill other soldiers
! but moral status of civilians do not change
! boxer analogy
! pg. 135
! soldiers can only lose their rights through some act of their own during war time
! pg. 136: one act is by fighting (threatening the other side)
! materially non-innocent vs. morally non-innocent
! materially: posing physical threat; even conscripts are materially non-innocent
! morally: no material threat, but morally guilty
! traditional view holds
! pg. 145
! soldiers are liable to be killed b/c they volunteer, and they are materially non-innocent
McMann
! denies that soldiers on both sides are morally equal
! legitimate targets are only unjust side and not just side (soldiers)
! pg.1: challange jus in bello is independent of jus ad bellum
! pg.28-29: in bello proportionality
! relevant goods has to be the goods from the just causes, hence the unjust side by virtue of
not having a just cause, cannot have the relevant goods to be used in proportionality
! soldiers fighting on just side are permitted to kill soldiers on the unjust side
! pg. 25 challenges the material non-innocent criteria giving justification to soldiers able to attack
soldiers regardless of which side they are on (just / unjust)
! an aggressive person cannot claim self defence when they themself initiated the harmful
scenario
! Waltzer pg.128: recognize this objection and responds that the military situation is different
than the bank robber, because bank robbers made decision, but soldiers are subject to
manipulation, deceit, patriotism
! McMann pg.25: the manipulation, deceit and patriotism are excuses and not justifications
you are morally liable to be killed in war is if you are morally responsible for some
wrongful action
! 1st part of Mcmann's view: just combatants retain all their right while unjust side loses their
right
! unjust combatants are allowed to attack just combatants if the just combatants attack
civilians
! nonresponsible attackers
! pg. 31: implacable pursuer
! mad scientist plants device in third party which controls her to kill you
! pursuer is non-responsible threat, hence you are not permitted to kill her
! Evil twin
! you have evil twin brother who is chasing after some person A with intent to kill and is
threat to their life
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
PHL378: War and Morality LEC16 Discrimination Nov, 3rd, 2009 Waltzer combatants are moral targets and non-combatants are not this is bc while everyone started off with rights to not be killed some ppl lost their rights soldiers lose right to be killed but also gain right to kill other soldiers but moral status of civilians do not change boxer analogy pg. 135 soldiers can only lose their rights through some act of their own during war time pg. 136: one act is by fighting (threatening the other side) materially non-innocent vs. morally non-innocent materially: posing physical threat; even conscripts are materially non-innocent morally: no material threat, but morally guilty traditional view holds pg. 145 soldiers are liable to be killed bc they volunteer, and they are materially non-innocent McMann denies that soldiers on both sides are morally equal legitimate targets are only unjust side and not just side (soldiers) pg.1: challange jus in bello is independent of jus ad bellum pg.28-29: in bello proportionality relevant goods has to be the goods from the just causes, hence the unjust side by virtue of not having a just cause, cannot have the relevant goods to be used in proportionality soldiers fighting on just side are permitted to kill soldiers on the
More Less
Unlock Document


Only half of the first page are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit