Class Notes (923,079)
CA (543,061)
UTSG (45,887)
PHL (1,579)
PHL378H1 (23)
Tom Hurka (23)
Lecture

LEC21 – Supreme Emergency Nov 24 2009

1 Page
86 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHL378H1
Professor
Tom Hurka

This preview shows half of the first page. Sign up to view the full page of the document.
PHL378: War & Morality
LEC21 Supreme Emergency
Nov, 24th, 2009
! supreme emergency = modern deontology
! deontology: opposite of consequentiallism, you should do an act not because it’s the right
act whether or not it produce good consequences is irrelevant, and whether or not it had the
right intention is also irrelevant
! Waltzer: if there is enough at stake, as in the early part of WWII, then targeting civilians in
violation of discrimination condition can be permitted
! supreme emergency is not satisfied with war on japan
! supreme emergency is not satisfied with later war against Germany in WWII
! Post WWII, there is general agreement to not target civilians
! pg. 264 Waltzer
! Truman's defense of Hiroshima bombing
! the ppl we bombed in Japan does not have full rights not to be attacked b/c they violated the
War convention
! sliding scale argument
! Waltzer says that only combatants are legitimate targets and that this is not a good argument
! pg. 231
! criticizing the sliding scale
! the rights of civilians is still present even in supreme emergency, we just override it
! pg. 259
! bombing of German civilians is a crime
! Tragic Moral Dilemma
no matter what you do, you do all things considered something wrong
! pg. 252
! 2 conditions for SE
1. imminent / close threat
! if not imminent, then its not last resort
!
2. danger / serious threat
! higher benefit: cost quantity such that the benefit of intending the death of civilians
must be a lot greater than the costs
! pg. 254
even if the danger only threat for a single nation as opposed to a group of
people, then SE can still be obtained (only when it entails enslavement,
extermination)
! 2 conditions both must be present for Supreme Emergency
! Truman's defence for bombing
! utilitarian consequence
shorten agony of war
! Japanese civilians has less rights b/c of their government
! No restraints on war if you are fighting Justly, the destruction you caused is on the
consciousness of the side that started the war
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 & Morality LEC21 Supreme Emergency Nov, 24th, 2009 supreme emergency = modern deontology deontology: opposite of consequentiallism, you should do an act not because its the right act whether or not it produce good consequences is irrelevant, and whether or not it had the right intention is also irrelevant Waltzer: if there is enough at stake, as in the early part of WWII, then targeting civilians in violation of discrimination condition can be permitted supreme emergency is not satisfied with war on japan supreme emergency is not satisfied with later war against Germany in WWII Post WWII, there is general agreement to not target civilians pg. 264 Waltzer Trumans defense of Hiroshima bombing the ppl we bombed in Japan does not have full rights not to be attacked bc they violated the War convention sliding scale argument Waltzer says that only combatants are legitimate targets and that this is not a good argument pg. 231 criticizing the sliding scale the rights of civilians is still present even in supreme emergency, we
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