Sections 3-6-Walzer on Jus In bello - Section 3-Walzer on Jus In bello Walzer's 2 Jus bello principles 1 It is always permissible to attack enemy

Sections 3-6-Walzer on Jus In bello - Section 3-Walzer on...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 5 pages.

Section 3-Walzer on Jus In bello Walzer's 2 Jus bello principles: 1. It is always permissible to attack enemy soldiers, except when they are wounded or captured a. You may attack those who are intrinsically linked to the war effort if there are no other ways to prevent them from contributing to the war effort a.i. e.g. you can kill munition workers if that was the only way to stop the enemy from producing munitions a. You may not attack those who assist in the war effort but are not intrinsically linked to it a.i. e.g. those supplying food and medicine to the war effort a.ii. This is because the people serving as soldiers would still need to eat and have medical attention if there was a war or not. They would not need munitions if there was no war. 1. One cannot intentionally seek to kill non-combatants a. Actions that result in the death of non-combatants are justified when: a.i. The act is good in itself or at least indifferent (it is a legitimate act of war) a.ii. The direct effect is morally acceptable a.i.1. e.g. destruction of military supplies or the killing of enemy soldiers a.i. The intention of the actor is good: a.i.1. he aims narrowly at the acceptable effect; the evil effect is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends, and aware of the evil involved he seeks to minimize it, accepting costs to himself a.i. The good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for allowing the evil effect a.i.1. It must be justifiable under Sidgwick's proportionality rule Walzer argues these two principles can be overridden in times of supreme emergency A supreme emergency is: 1. The imminence of the danger 2. Its nature By Walzer analysis UK's bombing of civilians (e.g. Dresden) was justified early in WWII because the UK was fighting the Nazis alone. It was not justified later in the war. Caney's 3 problems with Walzer's two principles: 1. Walzer simply asserts his two principles and offers no arguments for them 2. Walzer has two conflicting methodological commitments: a. He appeals to universal concepts like human rights and relativist concepts like the shared understandings of communities 1. His analysis of jus ad bellum and jus in bello conflict: a. His account of jus ad bellum: is strongly communitarian and state-centric a.i. Recall the low bar he sets for legitimate state authority a. His account of jus in bello is highly individualistic
Image of page 1
a.i. e.g. militaries must strive not to harm individual civilians Caney thinks that Walzer supreme emergency exception to jus in bello is suspect: Walzer defends the supreme emergency condition on the grounds that it is needed to defend the political community i.e. it is possible to live in a world where people are murdered but not in a world where genocide is common-place o Caney think Walzer treats political communities as having intrinsic moral worth o
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 5 pages?

  • Fall '13
  • Ashford
  • Walzer, Laws of war, jus ad bellum, a. Caney

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture