more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 23615
[filed under theme 25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 1. War / c. Combatants
]
Full Idea
It is said that combatants are compelled to fight; they have no choice. But duress is not a justification; nor does it ground a permission - not even a subjective permission. It is, instead, an excusing condition.
Gist of Idea
Fighting unjustly under duress does not justify it, or permit it, but it may excuse it
Source
Jeff McMahan (Killing in War [2009], 3.1.2)
Book Ref
McMahan,Jeff: 'Killing in War' [OUP 2009], p.113
A Reaction
The 'subjective' permission is believing you are just, even if you aren't. A nice, accurate and true distinction made by McMahan, I think. It is roughly our postwar attitude to the Nazi army.
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]
|