more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

Single Idea 23597

[filed under theme 25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 1. War / a. Just wars ]

Full Idea

In mainstream just war theory (Anscombe, Nagel, Walzer) the criterion of liability to attack is simply posing a threat. Since all combatants pose a threat to each other, they are morally liable to attack; because noncombatants do not, they are not liable.

Gist of Idea

Just war theory says all and only persons posing a threat are liable to attack

Source

Jeff McMahan (Killing in War [2009], 1.2)

Book Ref

McMahan,Jeff: 'Killing in War' [OUP 2009], p.11

A Reaction

McMahan says that the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate targets rests mostly on this basis. The problem is that a huge range of unarmed people can also pose various degrees of threat.

Related Idea

Idea 23598 You (e.g. a police officer) are not liable to attack just because you pose a threat [McMahan]

The 23 ideas from 'Killing in War'

23595 The worst unjustified wars have no aim at all [McMahan]
23594 Wars can be unjust, despite a just cause, if they are unnecessary or excessive or of mixed cause [McMahan]
23596 If all combatants are seen as morally equal, that facilitates starting unjust wars [McMahan]
23597 Just war theory says all and only persons posing a threat are liable to attack [McMahan]
23598 You (e.g. a police officer) are not liable to attack just because you pose a threat [McMahan]
23600 Proportionality in fighting can't be judged independently of the justice of each side [McMahan]
23599 You don't become a legitimate target, just because you violently resist an unjust attack [McMahan]
23602 Innocence implies not being morally responsible, rather than merely being guiltless [McMahan]
23603 Can an army start an unjust war, and then fight justly to defend their own civilians? [McMahan]
23604 Volunteer soldiers accept the risk of attack, but they don't agree to it, or to their deaths [McMahan]
23606 Liberty Rights are permissions, and Claim Rights are freedom from intervention [McMahan]
23605 Soldiers cannot know enough facts to evaluate the justice of their war [McMahan]
23608 If being part of a big collective relieves soldiers of moral responsibility, why not the leaders too? [McMahan]
23610 If soldiers can't refuse to fight in unjust wars, can they choose to fight in just wars? [McMahan]
23611 Soldiers cannot freely fight in unjust wars, just because they behave well when fighting [McMahan]
23612 The law of war differs from criminal law; attacking just combatants is immoral, but legal [McMahan]
23613 Equality is both sides have permission, or both sides are justified, or one justified the other permitted [McMahan]
23615 Fighting unjustly under duress does not justify it, or permit it, but it may excuse it [McMahan]
23616 Legal excuses are duress, ignorance, and diminished responsibility [McMahan]
23617 If the unjust combatants are morally excused they are innocent, so how can they be killed? [McMahan]
23618 Unconditional surrender can't be demanded, since evil losers still have legitimate conditions [McMahan]
23619 A defensive war is unjust, if it is responding to a just war [McMahan]
23620 A person or state may be attacked if they are responsible for an unjustified threat [McMahan]