100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 4 pages.
Section 7-Deontological Principles applied to Just WarAbsolutism: Forbids certain things rather than bringing about certain resultsoe.g. requires that we avoid murder at all costs, not that we prevent it at all costs Cosmopolitan: oIncludes all personsoAll persons must be treated as equalsoGenerates (negative) duties to all individuals Why accept an absolutist approach to jus in bello?Nagel: when we are doing something to someone we have to be able to justify what we are doing to that person oUtilitarianism offers justification to the world at large but this is unacceptable to the persons one confronts Nagel's two types of moral restrictions:1.Don't attack non-combatants: doing so would be using them as a means and not showing them respecta.Non-combatants are those not participating in an activity which is solely required to wage war 1.One may not use certain weapons (e.g. starvation and poison) because they attack the person and not simply the solider a.The only appropriate weapons are those that target the soldier and not thecombatant Caney's 4 objections to Nagel:1.Prioritizes and privileges the agent-relative perspective a.e.g. what if you could kill a civilian to save a bunch of lives (commando raids or bomber planes) a.i.Why doesn't the commando have to justify their behavior to the innocents back home? Nagel's approach fails, thus, to treat persons equally for it privileges and grants unequal moral worth to the person who happens to witness the commando raid. 1.It is far from clear that Nagel's theoretical apparatus will necessarily yield his absolutist conclusions a.It is not clear that one can never justify policies which call for a rights-violation to the agent whose rights one is about to violate a.i.E.g. violate the witness's rights to save the innocents rights1.Virtually an attack on someone qua-soldier is also an attack on him or her qua-person as well. How can you wage war?