more on this theme
|
more from this text
Single Idea 23610
[filed under theme 25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 1. War / c. Combatants
]
Full Idea
There is a certain symmetry here. The permissibility of disobeying a command to fight in an unjust war suggests the permissibility of disobeying a command not to fight in a just war.
Gist of Idea
If soldiers can't refuse to fight in unjust wars, can they choose to fight in just wars?
Source
Jeff McMahan (Killing in War [2009], 2.7)
Book Ref
McMahan,Jeff: 'Killing in War' [OUP 2009], p.92
A Reaction
The argument considered here is that since we could never allow soldiers to choose to fight in their own wars, we similarly cannot let them opt out of the official wars. Implying obedience is absolute. Soldiers don't get to 'choose' anything!
The
23 ideas
from Jeff McMahan
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]
|