1 / 9

War and Violence

War and Violence. Violence as a Process Definitive of the “State”. Distinction between “jus ad bellum” – justice of war and “jus in bello” – justice in war Violence and the state Legal monopoly on coercive power Legal right to take life

lewis-whitehead
Télécharger la présentation

War and Violence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. War and Violence

  2. Violence as a Process Definitive of the “State” • Distinction between “jus ad bellum” – justice ofwar and “jus in bello” – justice in war • Violence and the state • Legal monopoly on coercive power • Legal right to take life • Are there limits on violence state can legitimately employ?

  3. Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected “In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father [John Paul II], but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a "preemptive" or "preventive" strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war.” Houston Catholic Worker

  4. Conceptualizing the Problem of War • War as a “duel” with definable “rules of the game” • World War I “flying aces” • Sunset convention/ “white flag” • Rules of naval engagement • “Total war” • “All’s fair in love and war” • “War is hell” Sherman

  5. The Amoral “Realist” Claim • Acheson -- “moral talk did not bear on the problem.” • Doctrine of “military necessity” • War as self preservation; but need to restore order -- “war to end all wars.” • The problem of amoral realists relying on morality for their argument. • Essence of being human making significant ethical distinctions (Rawls)

  6. The Question of “jus in bello” • The “Rules of Engagement”: • Soldiers responsible for conduct of war, not war • “reach of battle” -- legitimate war deaths versus murder/massacre • Combatant/non-combatant distinction • Soldier; solitary soldier; naked soldier; munitions workers; sleeping uniform makers; farmers? • Right not to be attacked? • “Well ordered” versus “outlaw” state • Should non-combatants never be killed?

  7. The “Doctrine of Double Effect” • Killing of non-combatants permissible under some circumstances: • Direct good effect must be morally legitimate • Principle of proportionality must be maintained • Indirect effect -- death of non-combatants -- must be unintended • Walzer’s revision: risks (due care) must be taken

  8. When Can the Rules of War be Overridden? • “Supreme emergency:” “Our task is not only to win the battle - but to win the war. After this battle in France abates its force, there will come the battle for our Island -- for all that Britain is, and all that Britain means. That will be the struggle. In that supreme emergency we shall not hesitate to take every step, even the most drastic, to call forth from our people the last ounce and the last inch of effort of which they are capable. The interests of property, the hours of labor, are nothing compared with the struggle of life and honor, for right and freedom, to which we have vowed ourselves.” Winston Churchill, 19 May 1940 (Emphasis added)

  9. Supreme Emergency • Imminent, serious: way of life at threat • Justifies bombing German cities • Bombing of Dresden (Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse -Five) • “Terrorist” bombings

More Related