PHL378H1 Lecture 16: LEC16 – Discrimination Nov 3 2009
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
Document Summary
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. soldiers can only lose their rights through some act of their own during war time. 136: one act is by fighting (threatening the other side) materially: posing physical threat; even conscripts are materially non-innocent. morally: no material threat, but morally guilty traditional view holds. 145 soldiers are liable to be killed b/c they volunteer, and they are materially non-innocent. Mcmann legitimate targets are only unjust side and not just side (soldiers) denies that soldiers on both sides are morally equal. pg. 1: challange jus in bello is independent of jus ad bellum.
