1 / 11

PHIL 104 (STOLZE)

PHIL 104 (STOLZE). Notes on Heather Widdows , Global Ethics: An Introduction , chapter 8. Topics in Chapter Eight. War Terrorism Humanitarian Intervention. Moral Perspectives on War. Warism = no moral justification is needed for going to war ( “ War is hell! ” )

burton-maynard
Download Presentation

PHIL 104 (STOLZE)

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. PHIL 104 (STOLZE) Notes on Heather Widdows, Global Ethics: An Introduction, chapter 8

  2. Topics in Chapter Eight • War • Terrorism • Humanitarian Intervention

  3. Moral Perspectives on War • Warism = no moral justification is needed for going to war (“War is hell!”) • Pacifism = no moral justification is possible for going to war • Just War Theory = there are moral principles that govern when to go to war, and how to wage it

  4. Just War Theory • Jus ad bellum = justice of going to war • Jus in bello = justice of conduct during war

  5. Principles of Jus ad bellum • Legitimate authority • Just cause • Right intention • Strong probability of success • Last resort • Proportionality

  6. Principles of Jus in bello • Discrimination • Proportionality • Military necessity

  7. War and Personal Responsibility In his 2002 article “War without Sacrifice: The Loss of Personal Responsibility” (*) the philosopher Cheyney Ryan has proposed the following Principle of Personal Integrity: “You should only endorse those military actions of your country in which you yourself would be willing to give your life (tomorrow).” On the basis of this moral principle, which recent U.S.-led military actions would you have supported? Ryan also defines a “chickenhawk” as “someone who vigorously endorses a war and its sacrifices while diligently avoiding such sacrifices himself” (The Chickenhawk Syndrome, p. 1) *(For the article, see www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/Ryan.pdf; Ryan’s most recent book is The Chickenhawk Syndrome: War, Sacrifice, and Personal Responsibility [Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009].)

  8. Other Contemporary Forms of Conflict • Terrorism • Humanitarian Intervention

  9. Morality and Terrorism • Terrorism as a Just War? • Jus ad bellum and terrorism • Jus in bello and terrorism • How to balance security and civil liberties?

  10. The Morality of Humanitarian Intervention • Respects the “inviolate” and “universal” nature of human rights • Takes duties of global justice seriously • Respects all human beings, not just citizens

  11. Problems with Humanitarian Intervention • The “humanitarian claim might be abused. • It is difficult to justify force as a preventative measure. • It is difficult to publicly justify military casualties to defend non-compatriots. • There are practical problems about who decides when it is justified and on what criteria. • There are practical problems about insisting that states go to war when it might not be in their interest.

More Related