PHIL 2075 Lecture Notes - Counterargument

46 views3 pages
user avatar
Published on 16 Oct 2011
York University
PHIL 2075
class 2 - 1 killing in war lecture 1
Fullinwider if war is going to be just war, should not kill noncombatants even though not in law
Looks at bad argument for position he agrees with first analyzing Anscombe & Ramsey
Defends same position, but premises will be different
Eg. Cannot kill guilty bystanders, based on principle of self-defence
Fullinwider thinks only self-defence justifiable, critic thinks punishment to counter his argument
Response to counterargument
o Warfare techniques, poor technology doesn’t permit discriminate bombing, guarantee we are only killing guilty
noncombatants, probably kill innocent ones as well, just no technology advance to kill guilty
o Alright to kill guilty, if technology improves and guarantee only kill guilty
o Not negotiable that noncombatants who are innocent should never be killed, required no matter what
o A noncombatant that is innocent cannot be killed
o Counter-argument #5, is it soldiers’ duty to kill guilty noncombatants?
o Is death penalty justified for those guilty noncombatants?
o These two points Fullinwider could have pressed to stay with immunity thesis without weakening it at all
o Killing noncombatants at war is never justified even when they’re guility b/c killing in war is killing by soldiers
o And noncombatants at war ought to be punished but through some means of court
o Soldiers have job of following orders
o Judges and juries have the job of punishment
class 2 - 2 killing in war lecture 2
Recall Fullinwider defence of the immunity thesis was based on principle of self-defence, thought mapped onto
morally relevant distinction between combatants & non-combatants, unlike the principle of punishment
Alexander argues principle of self-defence does not map onto morally relevant distinction between combatants &
Alexander is critical of Fullinwider’s claim that we ought not to kill innocent non-combatants, b/c it’s not a morally
relevant category, goes about by looking at Smith & Jones case, is disanalogous to case of war
Creates new argument that permits killing non-combatants in some circumstances, does this to show there is no salient
distinction between combatant & non-combatant as far as warfare goes
Considering how we should act, who should be killed, talking about ppl as non-combatants or combatants is not morally
Suppose mobsters sitting across street & Jones knows what is going on
o Fullinwider’s says Jones is not permitted to kill mobsters but says this b/c war is over, compare this situation to
combatants in a war that is ongoing
o Alexander said there are many distinctions,
Fullinwider’s case wrong because war is over, wrong for Jones to kill mobsters, unless mobsters
starts shooting, self defence for Jones
Alexander says said this is not analogous to killing a non-combatant in an ongoing war situation
Question is: whether or not during war it is permissible to kill a non-combatant? Nobody argues it is
permissible for soldier to kill non-combatant when war is over
Alexander criticizes Fullinwider’s for making straw man argument, Smith & Jones is so unlike war,
attacking a position that nobody holds
The case & point is whether it’s permissible to kill a non-combatant during an ongoing war?
We would have to ask if it’s permissible for Jones to kill mobsters instead of killing Smith.
Unlock document

This preview shows page 1 of the document.
Unlock all 3 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in