Section 7-Deontological Principles applied to Just War
Absolutism:
Forbids certain things rather than bringing about certain results
o
e.g. requires that we avoid murder at all costs, not that we prevent it at all
costs
Cosmopolitan:
o
Includes all persons
o
All persons must be treated as equals
o
Generates (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
o
Utilitarianism 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 respect
a.
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 the
combatant
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 rights
1.
Virtually an attack on someone qua-soldier is also an attack on him or her
qua-person as well. How can you wage war?
