Western world literature is replete with references to the normal qualities supposedly inherent in or at least inextricably associated with the profession of arms. From Thucydides and Plato to writings associated with Nuremberg and the My Lai and Lavelle affairs, emphasis has been placed on discerning the moral responsibilities of individuals within the constraints of bureaucratic disciplinary structures. Fixing responsibility in these circumstances is not simple because the relationship between human values and the military function is so intricate

On the Morality of War: A Preliminary Inquiry *

The Ethics of Leadership

Terrorism and the Ethics of War: TERRORISM: WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Introduction Part I. Terrorism: What's in a Name?: 1. The problem of defining terrorism 2. Defining terrorism 3. What makes terrorism wrong? 4. Innocence and discrimination 5. 'Who dun it' definitions of terrorism Conclusion: taking stock Part II. Why Moral Condemnations of Terrorism Lack Credibility: Introduction: toward morally credible condemnations of terrorism 6. Why standard theories fail to condemn terrorism 7. Just war theory and the problem of collateral damage Conclusion: categorical vs. conditional criticisms of terrorism Part III. Defending Noncombatant Immunity: Introduction: the ethics of war-fighting: a spectrum of possible views 8. The realist challenge to the ethics of war 9. An ethic of war for reasonable realists 10. Walzer on noncombatant immunity as a human right 11. The supreme emergency exception 12. Rights theories, utilitarianism, and the killing of civilians 13. Immunity rights vs. the right of self-defense 14. A rule utilitarian defense of noncombatant immunity 15. Why utilitarian criticisms of noncombatant immunity are mistaken 16. Is noncombatant immunity a 'mere' convention? Part IV. How Much Immunity Should Noncombatants Have?: Introduction: the problem of collateral damage 17. The problem of collateral damage killings 18. The ethics of collateral damage killings Conclusion: terrorism and the ethics of war Bibliography Index.

https://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/37164/frontmatter/9780521137164_frontmatter.pdf

Terrorism and the Ethics of War

Just war thinking and realism are commonly presumed to be in opposition. If realists are seen as war-mongering pragmatists, just war thinkers are seen as naive at best and pacifistic at worst. Just war thought is imagined as speaking truth to power - forcing realist decision-makers to abide by moral limits governing the ends and means of the use of force. Realist Ethics argues that this oversimplification is not only wrong, but dangerous. Casting just war thought to be the alternative to realism makes just war thinking out to be what it is not - and cannot be: a mechanism for avoiding war. A careful examination of the evolution of just war thinking in the Christian, Islamic, and Hindu traditions shows that it is no stranger to pragmatic politics. From its origins, just war thought has not aimed to curtail violence, but rather to shape the morally imaginable uses of force, deeming some of them necessary and even obligatory. Morkevicius proposes here a radical recasting of the relationship between just war thinking and realism.

/pdf/realist-ethics-just-war-traditions-as-power-politics-41r929qnph.pdf

Realist Ethics: Just War Traditions as Power Politics

: The emerging operational environment of the United States military is characterized by a changing myriad of complex dimensions, the elements of which are often uncomfortably and in some cases drastically different from those encountered during the bipolar struggle of the Cold War In the aftermath of the Cold War, the United States stands without peer in the realm of conventional militaries US dominance in conventional military affairs creates an extreme asymmetric environment in which emerging adversaries perceive their only recourse to be an irrational form of unrestricted warfare The challenge facing the US is how to psychologically prepare for and actively counter this extreme asymmetric threat One of the most fundamental and possibly the most expedient way to counter this threat is through operational and strategic military leadership targeting Unfortunately, military leadership targeting, often considered nothing more than assassination, is associated with various legal, moral, and political conventions that detract from its exploitation This thesis will explore these conventions in order to answer the question: Is the physical destruction element of command and control warfare (C2W) an admissible shaping operation at either the theater strategic or operational levels of war? This monograph examines the circumstances that originally fostered the association of military leadership targeting with assassination, demonstrating the legality of the former and the illegality of the latter The legal disassociation provides a basis for scrutinizing the moral arguments for and against military leadership targeting so as to understand the moral acceptability of putting into action such a policy

On the Morality of War: A Preliminary Inquiry *

Citations

The Ethics of Leadership

Terrorism and the Ethics of War: TERRORISM: WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Terrorism and the Ethics of War

Realist Ethics: Just War Traditions as Power Politics

Theater Strategic and Operational Level Command and Control Warfare: The Legal, Moral, and Political Considerations of Leadership Targeting

Related Papers (5)

Review Essay: Rethinking Morality in War

Hermeneutic inquiry and just war theory: Finding meaning in a post-war society

The Relationship of an Ethic of War and A Theology of Peace: Preliminary Ideas

The Ethics of War

China and the American Dream: A Moral Inquiry.