Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: moral equality of combatants

Sort By:

Limit search:

Defeating Ignorance – Ius ad Bellum Heuristics for Modern Professional Soldiers

100%

Zając M.

Diametros

2019

vol. 16

issue 62

78-94

Just War Theory debates discussing the principle of the Moral Equality of Combatants (MEC) involve the notion of Invincible Ignorance; the claim that warfighters are morally excused for participating in an unjust war because of their epistemic limitations. Conditions of military deployment may indeed lead to genuinely insurmountable epistemic limitations. In other cases, these may be overcome. This paper provides a preliminary sketch of heuristics designed to allow a combatant to judge whether or not his war is just. It delineates the sets of relevant facts uncontroversially accessible and inaccessible to contemporary professional soldiers. Relevant facts outside these two sets should by default be treated as inaccessible until proven otherwise. Even such a rudimentary heuristic created in this way demonstrates that practical recommendations of MEC-renouncing Just War Theory are not too challenging to follow and still significantly impact a compliant combatant’s behavior.

Čo nebolo povedané o revizionistickej kritike

86%

Koniar I.

Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)

2018

vol. 66

issue 4

567-587

This article examines Josef Velek’s arguments concerning the controversy between “traditionalists” and “revisionists”. Velek, as a representative of the traditional approach, argues that revisionists call into question the right of national self-defence and reject the thesis of the logical independence of the principles of ius ad bellum and ius in bello, leading to serious consequences. These are, above all, the calling into question the moral equality of combatants, and the immunity of non-combatants. In addition, the revisionists, as a consequence, are deemed unable to formulate practically applicable principles of ius in bello. I hold that the revisionist approach can justify the use of armed force in national self-defence, and that revisionists provide convincing reasons for questioning the thesis that the principles of ius ad bellum and ius in bello are mutually independent. Revisionists reject the traditionalist assumption that killing in war is governed by distinct moral principles, and they offer an alternative way of considering the nature of the just war theory.

Im vorliegenden Artikel wird die Argumentation Josef Veleks im Kontext des Streits zwischen „Traditionalisten“ und „Revisionisten“ untersucht. Velek behauptet als Vertreter des traditionellen Ansatzes, die Revisionisten würden das Recht des Staates auf Selbstverteidigung anzweifeln und die These der logischen Unabhängigkeit der Grundsätze ius ad bellum und ius in bello ablehnen, was schwerwiegende Konsequenzen habe. Insbesondere die Infragestellung der moralischen Gleichheit von Kämpfenden und der Immunität von Nichtkämpfenden, sowie den Umstand, dass die Revisionisten anschließend nicht in der Lage seien, praktisch anwendbare Prinzipien des ius in bello zu formulieren. Ich behaupte, dass der revisionistische Ansatz die Anwendung militärischer Stärke zur Verteidigung des Staates begründen kann und dass die Revisionisten überzeugende Gründe für die Infragestellung der These von der logischen Unabhängigkeit der Grundsätze ius ad bellum und ius in bello bieten. Die Revisionisten lehnen die Voraussetzung ab, dass sich das Töten im Krieg nach eigenartigen moralischen Prinzipien richtet und bieten einen alternativen Denkansatz zur Theorie des gerechten Krieges.

Refine search results

1 Diametros

1 Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)

1 Koniar I.

1 Zając M.

1 2019

1 2018

Search results

Defeating Ignorance – Ius ad Bellum Heuristics for Modern Professional Soldiers

Čo nebolo povedané o revizionistickej kritike