Phil 202 course webpage

Comment sheet pick-up

2008-04-24T12:12:00.000-04:00

Graded comment sheets will be available for pick-up at Monday, April 28th, @ my office (Watson 024) from 11-12pm. If you can't make it Monday, You'll have another opportunity on Thursday at the same time and place.

additional notes on Narveson / Brunk

2008-04-15T12:10:00.001-04:00

The Narveson vs. Brunk debate

The debate overall

1. Narveson’s challenge to pacifism

He singles out a principle of pacifism then criticizes its underlying “moral logic”
If this is what pacifism is, then its underlying moral logic is irrational
Therefore, we should reject the ethic of pacifism

'Devastating philosophical critique' of the philosophy of pacifism

For Narveson, the pacifist ethic is essentially as follows:

A. The use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Insofar as people resort to force (for any reason) they breach their moral duty”
[This includes acts of violence meant to resist, prevent, or punish, previous violence]

B. But, proposition A cannot be a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Violence is wrong, and yet it is wrong to resist it”
If violence is evil, the non-pacifist should be permitted to use whatever means available in reacting against or preventing it
To say that there is a moral duty not to X is to state that we have a right against X

Conclusion:
Pacifism is a “self-negating” or irrational doctrine - it contains a logical contradiction
Pacifism is so devout in its loyalty to nonviolence that it has no flexibility to resist or prevent that which is it deems the ultimate evil

No method of “direct resistance”
No “moral statement” condemning the evil of violence
...No choice but to reject it on grounds of rationality and logic

Two underlying presuppositions:

1) The “moral statements” we implicitly make
If violence is wrong, we should be free to utilize the strongest means (including violence) in reacting to violence

2) The “moral logic” of rights and duties
Narveson’s moral duties are “correlated” with rights
Once you state that we have a right against X, aren’t you admitting that it is right to take the steps required to protect against X ?

“To say that you have a right to X but that no one has any justification for preventing people from depriving you of X, is self-contradictory”

2. Brunk’s response

A. Narveson selects a radical pacifist ethic that not all pacifists agree with.
There are many ways to interpret the ethic of pacifism à why has Narveson selected this narrow one?

B. Contrary to Narveson, pacifists don’t refuse every form of resistance
They merely refuse to resist by certain specific means (i.e. resisting killing)

C. The commonplace notion of the “moral logic” of duties and rights is not our one and only option
Narveson said: A. Use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
“Universalized” duties are the only kind of moral duties
Other traditions offer other kinds of moral duty

A. Narveson’s narrow interpretation
Brunk re-classifies the ethic of pacifism:

a) The “non-resistance principle”
[Against all force, coercion, or violence]

b) The “non-violence principle”
[Against serious physical or psychological injury]

c) The “no-homicide principle”
[Against lethal force]

d) The “no-war principle”
[Against the organized mass killing of war]

Pro-pacifism arguments in Lackey’s paper:
1. Anti-killing pacifism (immorality of killing)
2. Anti-coercion pacifism (immorality of violence)
3. Private pacifism (immorality of personal violence)
4. Anti-war pacifism (immorality of war)

Critical summary question:
What are the linkages between Brunk’s and Lackey’s categories?

C. The moral logic of duties and rights
Narveson said: Use of violence violates a moral duty (i.e. universal moral rule)
Universalized duties are the only valid moral duties

Ethical traditions offer other kinds of moral duty:
Ethics of virtue
“Non-secular” ethics
“Dualistic morality”

Moral standards...
Minimum baselines, below which we should never fall
Moral ideals --> ultimate aspirations, which we should always endeavour to achieve

The Overall Debate
Analytic approach
Major differences of style and strategy

Decisions to make:
Nonviolence as a duty
Self-defence as a right

15-minute essay:
1. Select one of the pro- or anti- pacifist arguments we’ve discussed (Sermon on the Mount; M.L. King jr.; Kant; Lackey)

2. Decide whether you think the argument is either convincingly challenged by Narveson or defended by Brunk.

3. Summarize the basic thrust of your position by stating it clearly in one or two sentences

4. Clearly explain one or two of your reasons for holding this view

Week 12

2008-04-03T13:58:00.000-04:00

The Realist Alternative

‘realpolitik’

War is essentially separate from moralizing, especially from the sentimental illusions of just war theory
War is always about national interests; i.e., augmenting one’s nation’s security, power and resources

Two arguments:
Descriptive realism
War is essentially separate from moralizing and the sentimental illusions of just war theory
States simply don’t care about morals and justice—they care only about their own self-defined interests
War exists inside an extraordinary realm, wherein power and national security are the only applicable concepts, and moral concepts are literally inapplicable …

Prescriptive realism
War is about national interests—i.e., security, power, resources
… ‘War should always be about national interests’
National security, power and resources should be sole factors that decide matters of war: “the primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents”
Justifications for war are part of a “crusading mentality” that increases the frequency of war

The standard layout: pacifism, the just war, realism

A: Descriptive realism versus the ‘moral reality’ of war
Is war essentially separate from the sentimental illusions of just war theory? Is war impervious to moral evaluation?
The pervasiveness of just war theory
“For as long as men and women have talked about war, they have talked about it in terms of right and wrong” …Age-old just war theory has evolved so as to encompass the major dilemmas raised by war
Parallels between strategic and moral concepts
Military necessity mirrors the ethics of war—at least in regard to our language
Compare; “you shouldn’t attack civilians” with “you shouldn’t attack heavily guarded positions from the front”
Projecting values
In addition to their exclusive self-interest, nation-states also project values and ideals
The human rights discourse
In modern times, human rights are viewed as universally binding—that is, they are supposed to come before national interests, and frequently do, at least in governmental pronouncements

Do these replies overcome descriptive realism?
“States do not care about morality and justice—they only care about their national interests”
“War inhabits a special realm of power and national security, wherein moral concepts are inapplicable …”
Augmenting national security and access to natural resources is by and large viewed as the first priority of a government
Frequently, additional priorities are taken into account, but typically these are subsumed by the ultimate consideration: national interest à
In particular, the projection of national values, such as universal human rights, is regarded as secondary to the ‘primary obligation’
Should players of competitive sports only care about winning?

B: Prescriptive realism and the ethics of national interest
… Should the decision whether to embark on war always be focused on exclusive national interests?
National security and resource access should be the sole factors in deciding matters of war
Justifying war embodies a “crusading” mentality that makes war frequent

Challenges:

Near vs. distant projections of the national interest
Proximate interests seemingly go against ‘shared moral commitments’. In the long term, however, the benefits of adhering to shared moral commitments are universal
Consensus on the universality of human rights
Human rights are “real, powerful and principled limits on what realism can plausibly justify”—human rights always deserve moral priority over national interest
Do these replies successfully overcome prescriptive realism?

The ‘primary obligation’:
The primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents… e.g., to its military security, the integrity of its political life, and the well-being of its people
Should players of competitive sports only care about winning?
Should people make decisions about marriage & career exclusively on egoistic or self-interested grounds?

Pacifism: war in all its forms is unjustifiable -->

Just war theory: war is justifiable when it’s violence and killing are restrained and it is premised on self-defense

Principle of pacifism/nonviolence:
A personal ethic
A political doctrine
An absolute principle
A qualified principle

Teleological pacifism (TP)

“War is at odds with human development and flourishing”
Non-violence is a necessary condition of developing a decent human personality
Non-violence is tantamount to being a ‘cardinal virtue’ of human flourishing
Therefore: we should follow pacifists, and adhere to their strict rule of non-violence

Possible examples : i) satyagraha, ii) Sermon on the Mount, iii) MLK’s variant of nonviolence, iv) Ryan’s ‘impulse’

Orend’s challenge:
However, consider some other ‘virtues’:
Virtues such as these, of a non-pacifistic nature, seem equally crucial to human flourishing
Therefore, TP grounds a fragile kind of pacifism, not an absolute rule of nonviolence
Is the challenge successful?

Consider our TP examples:

Consequentialist pacifism (CP)

“The benefits of war never outweigh the costs”
Violence, killing, destruction and suffering are the recurrent circumstances of war
Therefore: to avert human suffering we should follow pacifists and adhere to their strict rule of non-violence

Orend’s challenge:
Adhering to the non-violence principle also has large costs
Certain wars might actually inhibit bloodshed:
Therefore: CP pacifists can support war whenever it is probably ‘beneficial’

No moral principle, let alone an absolute prohibition

Bottom line is a question: is non-violence likely to bring advantages?

Deontological pacifism (DP)

“War violates fundamental duties of morality and justice, such as the prohibition against killing”
Some have faith in the sanctity of human life; others support the concept of a universal right to life
These views share the same basic moral proposition: non-violence principle is crucial to morality—
Therefore: we should follow pacifists, and adhere to a strict rule of non-violence

Examples: i) Robert Holmes’s view that “no war can ever be fought justly, regardless of the ends supposedly aimed for”; ii) Narveson’s target version of pacifism; iii) Lackey’s anti-killing pacifism
Orend’s challenge:
The pacifist dilemma appears …
How should we advocate and uphold the sanctity of human life or universal right to life?

1st approach: advocate and uphold nonviolence by strict rule, admitting no exemptions

2nd approach: advocate and uphold nonviolence by actively defending against anyone guilty of aggression

Adopting the 2nd approach fails to provide an absolute rule of nonviolence
It asserts: war is justifiable when it’s violence and killing are restrained, and credibly grounded by self-defense

Is the challenge successful?
It presumably weakens absolute pacifism, and urges us to endorse a qualified nonviolence principle

My exam period contact info:

Email questions to me at: 9msk@qlink.queensu.ca
No specific office hours are scheduled, but no problem setting up a meeting

Final exam review

2008-03-29T17:35:00.001-04:00

Philosophy 202
Final Exam Review Questions - April 2008

The final exam is scheduled for Wednesday, April 16, @ 9am

The exam has three parts:

PART A (multiple choice questions)
PART B (short answer questions)
PART C (essay questions)

Below are suggestions for your preparation. The first section contains concepts & definitions. The second contains short-answer type questions. The last section contains a examples of essay questions.

Questions on the test are drawn from all course readings and lectures. Some questions on the test are not covered in the material below.

The following readings ARE covered on the exam…

From the P&CC package:
Walzer, “Nonviolence and the Theory of War”
Lackey, "Pacifism"
Jesus of Nazareth, "The Sermon on the Mount/The Good Samaritan"
Cheyney Ryan, “The Morality of Pacifism”
Gandhi, “The Practice of Satyagraha”
Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail"
Kant, "Perpetual Peace”
Walzer, “Just and Unjust War”
Narveson, "Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis"
Brunk, "Is Pacifism Morally Coherent? A Reply to Narveson”
Anscombe, "War and Murder"
Boonin & Oddie, "Is Killing in War Wrong?"
Fullwinder, “War and Innocence”
Alexander, “Self-Defence and the Killing of Non-combatants: A Reply to Fullwinder”
Wasserstrom, “On the Morality of War”
Ruddick, “Mothers and Men's Wars”
Ruddick, “A Women's Politics of Resistance"
Bethke Elshtain, “Is There a Feminist Tradition on War and Peace?” (P&CC)
Tobias, “Toward a Feminist Ethic of War and Peace”
Orend, “What Justifies Human Rights?”
Orend, “Can Human Rights Withstand Criticism?”

From Orend’s Morality of War:
Chapter 1: “A Sweeping history of Just War Theory”
Chapter 2: “Jus ad Bellum #1: Resisting Aggression”
Chapter 3: “Jus ad Bellum #2: Non-Classical Wars”
Chapter 4: “Jus in Bello #1: Just Conduct in War”
Chapter 5: “Jus in Bello #2: Supreme Emergencies”
Chapter 8: “Evaluating the Realist Alternative”
Chapter 9: “Evaluating the Pacifist Alternative”

The following readings IS NOT covered on the exam…
Sterba, Reconciling Pacifists and Just War Theorists”

Concepts & definitions:

Mohandas Gandhi
Leo Tolstoy
Jesus of Nazareth
Michael Walzer
St. Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas
The war convention
International realism
Non-combatant immunity
Just cause
Carl von Clausewitz
Civil disobedience
Satyagraha
Universal pacifism
Anti-killing pacifism
Anti-coercion pacifism
Private pacifism
Anti-war pacifism
The Biblical prohibition
The sacredness of life view
The right to life argument
Christian pacifism
Intention
Self-defense
The moral exemplar argument
St. Augustine’s limited pacifism
The ancient ethic
The Jewish law
The early Christian ethic of nonviolence
Adequate justification
Thrasymachus
Militarism
The Theory of Aggression
The domestic analogy
Just war theory
Deontological pacifism
Prescriptive realism
Descriptive realism
Vitoria
Grotius
Vattel
Wolff
Universal community of humankind
Universal human rights
Laws of nature

Legal positivism
Moral convention
Human dignity
Prudence
Consequentialism
Rawls’s argument
Vital needs
Inference
Holy war
Just cause
Right intention
Proportionality
Last resort
Legitimate authority
The ‘forced to fight’ argument
The self-determination argument
Different species of human rights
Minimal justice
Security
Subsistence
Liberty
Equality
Recognition
‘Calling your shot’
Discrimination
Non-combatant immunity
Human rights inflation
Benevolent quarantine
Minimum moral standards
Ultimate moral ideals
‘Due care’ for civilians
The doctrine of double effect (DDE)
Walzer’s ‘due care’ principle
The moral reality of war
Reprisals
The moral equality of soldiers
Supreme emergency
Three components of universal human rights
‘War rights’ of soldiers
Consequentialist pacifism
Teleological pacifism
All’s fair in love and war
Thomas Hobbes
inter arma silent leges
Thucydides
realpolitik
The popular dichotomy
The ethic of care
Essentialism (as in debates on feminist ethics of war and peace)
Churchill’s consequentialism
The East Asian critique
The Feminist critique
The Marxist critique

Short answer questions

How does ‘pacifism’ enter into the current debate about the morality of war?
Do you think that human rights are universal?
Is Orend correct to say his arguments ‘defeat’ pacifism as a philosophical alternative to just war theory?
Which of the arguments for universal human rights do you find most convincing?
Describe some of the variants of pacifism we’ve examined in class, and explain in your own words which of the variants you consider most compelling.
In your own words, outline Walzer’s argument against non-violence.
In your own words, clearly describe your understanding of Walzer’s concept of the “war convention”.
What are the three components of Ruddick’s Women’s Politics of Resistance?
What are the three major positions in the ethics of war and peace?
Does the idea of a feminist ethic of war and peace necessarily “essentialize” the nature of women?
Explain the ‘inference’ argument for universal human rights by looking at the views of Henry Shue or H.L.A. Hart.
What are the main virtues and drawbacks of: i) Orend’s human rights-based framework; and ii) Walzer’s noninterventionist framework?
In your own words, state the basic moral proposition of the idea of universal human rights.
Are ‘reprisals’ morally justifiable?
Explain the role played by Argentina’s Madres (the mothers of the disappeared) in Ruddick’s arguments.
What does Anscombe mean in saying that certain views of pacifism lead to a ‘universal forgetfulness of the law against killing the innocent’?
How would you argue for the proposition that soldiers have a right to kill?
Provide a few real-world examples of international realism ‘in action’, e.g. the Truman & Acheson comments we looked at in class.
What view was being espoused by the Athenian Generals in the Melian Dialogue?
Do you think Satyagraha is an effective method of challenging political injustice?
Does Kant support the idea of a “world republic”? What are his arguments?
Do you think Satyagraha provides a convincing moral argument? What kind of moral argument do you think it establishes?
Do you think “human rights inflation” is a problem?
What are the differences between Rawls’s and Martin Luther King’s accounts of ‘civil disobedience’?
Is non-violence unique to Christianity?
How does Walzer defend just war theory against international realism?
Does the Christian idea of non-violence get beyond the “ancient ethic”?
In your own words, explain Martin Luther King’s moral argument for civil disobedience.
Are women essentially peaceful? Are men essentially warlike?
In your own words, trace out the commonplace argument that connects women, maternal practice, and anti-war points of view.
Clearly explain why you think Gandhi’s Satyagraha either does or does not establish non-violence as an absolute moral principle.
Is it justifiable to break the law for political reasons?
What is the foundation of Kant’s perpetual peace idea?
What are the major problems with Kant’s idea of pacifism?
Has Orend successfully ‘defeated’ the ‘pacifist alternative’ to just war theory?
Locate and the following quotation and put it into context: ‘The primary obligation of a national government is to the interests of the national society it represents’.
In your own words, explain Ruddick’s vision of a ‘feminist material peace politics’, and explain how it represents a strong feminist contribution to the morality of war debate.
Evaluate the claim that there is no such thing as a supreme emergency.
Explain some of the major differences between the two major just war frameworks.
Are consequences all that matter in considering just war issues?
What are Orend’s jus in bello constraints? What additional constraints has Orend added to the traditional conception?
Does Ruddick agree with the assertion that women ‘exemplify the commitment to non-violence’? What reasons does she give?
Is there a significant difference between Britain’s bombing of German cities and use of the atom bomb on Japanese cities?
Explain the ‘central dichotomy’ that Ruddick sees in the commonplace connection between masculinity and violence.
Explain how Cheyney Ryan makes use of Orwell’s famous allegory of the vulnerable fascist.
Is the issue of international realism important? What arguments support realism?

Example essay questions

What is ‘the domestic analogy’ and how does it relate to Walzer’s Theory of Aggression?
Is non-violent resistance to aggression likely to succeed?
Do you agree with the way Orend categorizes the human rights arguments?
Explain ONE of Lackey’s variants of pacifism, and give your own argument explaining his challenge against this variant is successful.
Explain the major steps and issues at stake in the Narveson/Brunk debate on the morality of pacifism.

Week 11

2008-03-29T16:37:00.001-04:00

jus in bello p. 1: “Just Conduct during War”

jus in bello principles:
Discrimination
Proportionality

“A legitimate target is anyone or anything which is engaged in harming”

Non-combatants (civilians) always retain human rights
Soldiers forfeit their human rights (until surrender)
Legitimate targets should be attacked with appropriate (proportional) force
“Military necessity” should be tightly restrained

Five major controversies:
Non-combatant immunity
Responsibilities of soldiers
War rights of soldiers
Benevolent quarantine
Reprisals

Non-combatant immunity
Absolute prohibition (never kill civilians)
The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)
Walzer’s ‘due care’ principle

Responsibilities of soldiers

War rights of soldiers

Benevolent quarantine
(torture and other mistreatment of surrendered soldiers (POWs))

Reprisals
(deliberate jus in bello violations responding to prior violations by the enemy side)

Two approaches:
Orend’s (foremost) human rights framework
Walzer’s (seemingly less-significant) nonaggression framework

Benevolent quarantine
Is mistreatment or physical torture of POWs ever acceptable? Under what conditions?
Torturing accused terrorists to extract life-saving information
Which of the two major approaches (Orend’s or Walzer’s) best articulates your views on the ethics of benevolent quarantine?

Reprisals
Should reprisals be accepted into jus in bello?
Should just war theory countenance deliberate violations of jus in bello which respond directly to prior violations by the enemy side?

Detention camps
Trench warfare
Nuclear war

Walzer: only in extraordinary circumstances
Orend: not in any circumstances
Which of the two major approaches (Orend’s or Walzer’s) best articulates your views on the ethics of reprisals?

jus in bello p.2: “Supreme Emergency” exemption?

The problem
How do we specify the conditions of a supreme emergency?
The typical real-world cases
Orend’s five options

The problem
What are the limits of jus in bello rules? Is it ever right to suspend them?
Suspending jus in bello rules appears to render them non-compulsory
Is supreme emergency a moral loophole?
Supreme emergency in a post-9/11 world

What’s needed is a principled method
Something similar in structure to MLK’s ‘civil disobedience’
Need to clarify the underlying principles
Use them to lay out a principled exemption
King’s principled method:
Legal rules sustain our society:
We comply with the legal order
We consent to the legal order
“An unjust law is no law at all” (St. Augustine)
Unjust law is human law not rooted in eternal and natural law (St. Thomas Aquinas)
The eternal law:
Any law that uplifts the human personality is just
Any law that degrades the human personality is unjust
Finally, “one who breaks the law must do so openly, lovingly and with willingness to accept personal penalties”

Defining “supreme emergency”?
Orend & Walzer’s conditions:
Evidence that the aggressor is about to entirely defeat the victim
Evidence that the occupying aggressor will institute a policy of massacre or enslavement
Not merely defeat; slaughter, slavery and total catastrophe

Real-world cases:
Britain’s WWII firebombing of German civilians
vs.
Dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities to end WWII
Torturing terrorists to extract life-saving confessions
vs.
Terrorism as a political tactic

Finding some kind of “reflective equilibrium”:

Orend’s five options:
Ways to deal with the supreme emergency exemption
No such thing as supreme emergency
Churchill’s consequentialism
Absolute non-combatant immunity
Walzer’s ‘dirty hands’ approach

Prudential strategy
No such thing as supreme emergency
Wrong to suspend jus in bello
A gaping loophole, which we need to seal off
The exemption is necessarily open-ended and self-serving
Once again, we see a form of the ‘pacifist dilemma’

Churchill’s consequentialism
Right to suspend jus in bello in desperate situations
It’s wrong to concede defeat against aggression
We have a duty to protect humanity
Nagel’s problem: hostile treatment of any person must be justified in terms of something about that person which makes the treatment appropriate

Absolute non-combatant immunity
Adhere strictly to jus in bello
Only this will validate and reinforce our common humanity
But, what about a government’s duty to protect citizens?

Walzer’s ‘dirty hands’ approach
Right to suspend jus in bello in desperate situations
It remains always wrong to kill civilians intentionally
Civilians’ rights are genuine
Killing them in war is tantamount to mass murder
Civilian killings are nevertheless justified in supreme emergencies
We excuse the conduct of soldiers and decision-makers
But, condemn their conduct by public shaming

Moral tragedy / Prudential strategy
Right to suspend jus in bello in desperate situations
It remains always wrong to kill civilians intentionally
The situation pits morality against the survival instinct
Owing to the duress of the situation, we excuse the victim’s actions, but never justify them
The whole thing is a wretched moral tragedy; no matter what you do, you’re wrong

Week 10

2008-03-22T17:28:00.001-04:00

Three issues:

“Anticipations”
Civil wars
“Interventions”

Carefully enlarging the just cause condition of just war theory

“Pre-emptive” war
Problem: forcing states to wait to be attacked in spite of increasing risks is not a reasonable insistence
Major distinction: preventive vs. pre-emptive war
i) U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003); ii) Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the ‘Six Day War’)

Civil war
Questions: Is it just to begin a civil war? Is it just to intervene on behalf of one of the factions?
Examples: i) U.S. Civil War (1860-1865); ii) U.S. war in Vietnam (1960-75)

“Humanitarian” war (i.e. interventions)
Definition: coercive military action not against previous aggression, but instead meant to protect civilians in a foreign country from abuse by their own government
Major distinction: U.N.-sponsored peacekeeping vs. ‘humanitarian military intervention’
Examples: i) war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (92-95); ii) Somalia (92-94); iii) Serbia/Kosovo (1999)

Carefully enlarging the just cause condition of just war theory
Two possible strategies / two interpretations of aggression:

Orend’s human rights framework
Walzer’s nonaggression framework

Orend’s human rights framework
Six jus ad bellum constraints

Just cause
Right intention
Public declaration by a legitimate authority
Last resort
Probability of success
Proportionality

War is justified only if it satisfies the complete package
War is unjustified if it fails any one

Aggression, ‘minimal justice’ and sovereignty rights
“Aggression” is the violent attack of basic human rights
Not all sovereign states have state sovereignty rights e.g., rights to territory and political independence
Societies which fail to uphold the “minimal moral code” forfeit all sovereignty rights

Content of the Minimal Moral Code:
Minimal moral code = protection of basic human rights
Basic human rights = Orend’s “foundational five”:

Security
Subsistence
Liberty
Equality
Recognition

This is the human rights-conception of ‘legitimacy’
Under Orend’s framework, “regimes which fail the conditions of minimal justice are not legitimate, and thus have no state rights, including the right not to be attacked or overthrown” (Orend, pp. 97)

Walzer’s theory of aggression

There exists a society of independent sovereign states
This society establishes basic rights of members—above all, rights to territory and sovereignty
The threat or use of force against the another sovereign state constitutes aggression, which is a crime
The crime of aggression justifies two responses: wars of self-defence, and wars of law enforcement
Nothing but aggression justifies war
Once the aggressor has been successfully resisted, it can also legitimately be punished

“Aggression” is a violent attack against a sovereign state
Under the theory of aggression, sovereign states enjoy protection via ‘the rule of non-intervention’

Sovereignty rights go to all recognized states
(i.e. those able to hold together a government, control and defend territory, speak to other governments
Under Walzer’s ‘nonaggression’ framework, we ‘presume’ that each ‘recognized’ state is legitimate
All recognized states are given the rights of territory and political independence

What is a sovereign state?
A political community

What are the foundations of sovereignty rights

The rights of human beings (i.e. as individuals)?
The rights of political communities (i.e. in groups)?

Pre-emptive war

Pre-emption is armed attack where the victim strikes first in anticipation of an attack that is coming in the near future
Example: Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (the ‘Six Day War’)

A. Orend: Human Rights Maximization
“Sufficient threat”:
Manifest intent to injure
Active preparation
A situation where waiting greatly magnifies the risks of being attacked

B. Walzer: Penalizing Aggression
“States may use armed force against threats of war whenever failure to do so would seriously risk their territorial integrity or political independence”
Under such circumstances, it can fairly be said that they have been forced to fight and are the victims of aggression”

Civil war

Is it just to begin a civil war? Is it just for foreign countries to take sides on behalf of one faction?
Example: i) U.S. Civil War (1860-1865)

A. Orend’s approach: Human Rights Maximization
Both questions are answered in terms of ‘minimal justice
When both sides are legitimate, we imagine a “no-fault divorce”
(one side desire to be separate, and thus divide assets, liabilities, and dependants according to the law)

B. Walzer: Maximizing Self-Determination
Walzer’s sole concern is whether foreign countries should intervene in a civil war
Inside a sovereign state, self-determination should prevail

“When, if ever, is taking sides justified?”

Only when a foreign country has prematurely intervened – i.e., only in situations of “counter intervention”

Humanitarian military interventions

Coercive military action not against previous aggression, but instead meant to protect civilians in a foreign country from abuse by their own government
Examples: i) Bosnia-Herzegovina (92-95); ii) Somalia (92-94); Serbia/Kosovo (1999)

A. Orend’s approach: Human Rights Maximization
Not all sovereign states have state sovereignty rights
Societies failing to uphold the “minimal moral code” forfeit sovereignty rights
When a state is found to be illegitimate, “it has no ethical reason to exist”
Becomes permissible for foreign countries to undertake an ‘invasive military response’

Emerging consensus on conditions for legitimate intervention:
When states are unwilling or unable to control and provide security portions of their territory
When state governments are culpable for massive or systematic human rights violations such as genocide
When the victimized population appeals to the outside world for assistance
When it is reasonable to believe intervention will succeed

--> The Responsibility to Protect (2001)

B. Walzer’s approach: ‘Presumptive Legitimacy’
We ‘presume’ each state to be legitimate
All states are entitled to rights to territory and political independence
Humanitarian military intervention is only permissible:

Against conflicts that ‘shock the collective conscience of humankind’
To deter genocide, massacre, or enslavement
Under Walzer’s ‘nonaggression’ framework, we ‘presume’ that each ‘recognized’ state is legitimate
All recognized states are given the rights of territory and political independence

What are Walzer’s arguments?

The forced to fight argument
The self-determination argument

jus ad bellum #2 Non-Standard Wars
(...from Tuesday)

Strengths of both sides of just war theory:

Clear moral distinctions
Clear assignment of moral responsibility
Setting incentives & and promoting deterrence

---> Carefully enlarging the just cause condition of just war theory

Growing consensus on legitimacy of military intervention:

When states are unwilling or unable to control and provide security portions of their territory
When state governments are culpable for massive or systematic human rights violations such as genocide
When the victimized population appeals to the outside world for assistance
When it is reasonable to believe intervention will succeed

--> The Responsibility to Protect (ICISS, 2001)

Orend’s human rights framework

Not all sovereign states have state sovereignty rights e.g., rights to territory and political independence
Societies which fail to uphold the “minimal moral code” forfeit all sovereignty rights
Orend says: “regimes which fail the conditions of minimal justice are not legitimate, and thus have no state rights, including the right not to be attacked or overthrown” (Orend, pp. 97)

Six jus ad bellum constraints:

Just cause

Humanitarian military intervention
(Anticipatory war)
(Civil war)

Right intention
Public declaration by a legitimate authority
Last resort
Probability of success
Proportionality

War is justified only if it satisfies the package
War is unjustified if it fails one constraint

Incidents of humanitarian military intervention:

Bosnia-Herzegovina (92-95);
Somalia (92-94);
Kosovo (1999)

Walzer’s nonaggression framework
Under the theory of aggression, sovereign states enjoy protection through ‘the rule of non-intervention’
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" (U.N. Charter, Ch. 1, Art. 2, #4)

Sovereignty rights go to all recognized states
(i.e. those governments which can hold together a central government, control their territory, communicate diplomatically with other governments)

‘Presumptive Legitimacy’
Humanitarian military intervention is only permissible:
Into conflicts that ‘shock the collective conscience of humankind’
Wherever genocide, massacre, or mass enslavement are occurring

Under Walzer’s ‘nonaggression’ framework:
We ‘presume’ each state is legitimate
But, we ‘disregard’ the rule of non-intervention whenever genocide, massacre, or enslavement are occurring

What are Walzer’s arguments?
The forced to fight argument
The communal integrity argument

What are the foundations of Walzer’s sovereignty rights?
The rights of human beings?
The rights of political communities?

jus in bello p. 1: “Just Conduct in War”
“A legitimate target is anyone or anything which is engaged in harming”
Non-combatants (civilians) retain their human rights
Soldiers (until surrender) forfeit their human rights
Legitimate targets should be attacked with appropriate force

Components in Orend’s jus in bello discussion

Discrimination
The doctrine of double effect (DDE)
Non-combatant immunity
Benevolent quarantine (for captured POWs)
‘Due care’ (for innocent civilians)
Proportionality
Military methods which are ‘evil in themselves’
Reprisals

Two standard jus in bello principles:

Discrimination
Proportionality

Five major controversies:

Non-combatant immunity
Responsibilities of soldiers
‘War rights’ of soldiers
Benevolent quarantine (torture of captive POWs)
Reprisals

Discrimination

Non-combatant immunity
Responsibilities of soldiers
‘War rights’ of soldiers
Benevolent quarantine (torture of captive POWs)

Proportionality

Reprisals

1. Discrimination
Non-combatant immunity

Why should we discriminate between soldiers and civilians? Why is a soldier a justified target? Why is a civilian not a justified target? How do we mark the distinction in battlefield situations?

Responsibilities of soldiers

Shouldn’t we also hold soldiers responsible for the justice of their wars?

‘War rights’ of soldiers

Why do soldiers have the ‘right to kill’ enemy soldiers? Are all soldiers liable to be killed?

Benevolent quarantine (torture of captive POWs)

Why shouldn’t we torture captured enemy combatants?

2. Proportionality
Reprisals

Should just war theory sanction deliberate violations of jus in bello that respond to prior violations by the enemy side?

Non-combatant immunity

Why should we discriminate between soldiers and civilians?

How strict should we be about non-combatant immunity?

Absolute prohibition (i.e. never kill innocent civilians)

The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

Walzer’s ‘due care’ principle

Responsibilities of soldiers

Why shouldn’t we hold soldiers responsible for the justice & legality of their wars?
Is there a clear distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello?

‘War rights’ of soldiers

Why do soldiers have the ‘right to kill’ enemy soldiers?
Where do they acquire such a right?
What enables us to say that soldiers have ‘given up’ their right to life

Torture of prisoners (benevolent quarantine)

Why shouldn’t we torture enemy combatants (if the payoff is positive)?
When (if ever) is physical torture of POWs acceptable?
Which of the two approaches to JWT (Orend’s or Walzer’s) best explains benevolent quarantine?

The doctrine of reprisal

Should just war theory tolerate deliberate violations of jus in bello that respond to prior violations by the enemy side?

Should reprisals be justifiable within jus in bello?

Walzer’s answer: in extraordinary circumstances
Orend’s answer: not in any circumstances

Week 9

2008-03-15T12:30:00.001-04:00

The human rights-based conception:

Everyone, regardless of who they are or where they happen to live, is deserving of a minimum standard of treatment -->

Human rights are so basic they should be respected at all times, for every person, no matter what the cost

Violations of human rights are acceptable only if they will provide greater protection of human rights

Three general critiques:

The Marxist critique
The Feminist critique
The East Asian critique

The Marxist critique

Human rights are part of the mythology of market society, useful because they create a comforting illusion of freedom and equalityHuman rights are not universal, and serve to entrench and perpetuate market society
Free markets typically benefit a small ruling elite by violently repressing a powerless “working class”They evolved in the context of market society, ..... their purpose has always been to create ideal conditions for the functioning of a free market

The feminist critique

Human rights are rooted in a male ethic that presupposes isolated individuals in a context of natural competition
Human rights are not universal because they disregard a large branch of our moral vocabulary, i.e. concepts of community, care and nurturing
Human rights imply a vision of people as “artificial and assertive, calculating and competitive, disconnected and disadvantageous”, and downplay communal and care ideas

And by entrenching universal human rights, we inadvertently advance facets of human nature that are calculating and competitive
But, women’s liberation and indeed other liberation movements have always appealed to the notion of universal rights

The “East Asian” critique

Central claim: human rights are not universal, but instead are “arrogantly Eurocentric”
Human rights are rooted in Western European ideas about human nature and political community, which not all societies share

Orend’s answers:

The Eurocentrism criticism says human rights are chauvinistic because they originated in Western Europe... “But just because the good idea of human rights can out of Western Europe doesn’t mean other cultures should resist it.”

Alongside processes of globalization, a true cross-cultural consensus is currently evolving

“It does not seem arrogant to suggest that everyone wants their own vital needs met, and that reasonable people agree that it is only fair that everyone gets that objects of their vital needs”Human rights are rooted in Western European ideas about human nature and political community, which not all societies share

Some non-European societies put a high priority on heritage, culture, family loyalty, and values of community

If enforced worldwide, universal human rights could grind down “collectivistic values” of community, family and culture, potentially undermining whole societies

Orend’s response:

There is plenty of room for collectivistic values above the minimal threshold

Orend’s interpretation of Just War Theory

“A coherent set of concepts and values which enables moral judgments in wartime”The history of the just war tradition is the gradual accumulation of these wartime constraints
“The principles of just war theory serve to fulfill the human rights of persons as best they can be fulfilled in times of war”

Central question:

Where does the just war tradition acquire moral authority?
Religious tradition?

Weight of deeply-rooted history?
Integrity of a coherent theory?
Universal human rights?
The rights of the sovereign state?
Utilitarianism?

Two current frameworks:

Orend’s human rights-based framework
vs.
Walzer’s statist or noninterventionist framework

The foundation in universal human rights

The early debate:

Augustine --> Aquinas (AD 300-1300)

Universal moral community

Vitoria --> Grotius (1500-1600)

Various ‘statist’ alternatives

Vattel --> Wolff(1650-1750)(“legal positivism”)
Hobbes --> von Clausewitz (1650-1850)(“international realism”)
Hedley Bull & the ‘English School’(the ‘morality of states’)

Modern codification:

Hague Conventions (1899, 1907)
U.N. Anti-Genocide Convention (1948)
The U.N. Charter (1945)
Nuremburg Military Tribunal (1946)
Geneva Conventions (1949)

Modern international society:

Everyone, regardless of who they are or where they live, is entitled to a minimum standard of treatment -->

Preamble to the U.N. Charter (Dec. 1948):

“The peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”
“Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms”

Human rights violations are acceptable only if they are intended to protect other human rights (i.e. for security and stability)

The Responsibility to Protect (2001)

The “Post-Walzer” debate

Walzer’s (1977) book Just and Unjust Wars set out to modernize the just war tradition.

Two propositions:

Allies in WWII constituted a just war
The U.S. in Vietnam constituted an unjust war

How does Walzer explain the difference?

States have basic “sovereignty rights” like individuals have human rights within domestic society (call this “the domestic analogy”)
We understand the rights of states just as we do individual rights: violence is acceptable only for purposes of self-defence

Walzer’s theory of aggression

There exists a society of independent sovereign states
This society establishes basic rights of members—above all, rights to territory and sovereignty
The threat or use of force against the another sovereign state constitutes aggression, which is a crime
The crime of aggression justifies two responses: wars of self-defence, and wars of law enforcement
Nothing but aggression justifies war
Once the aggressor has been successfully resisted, it can also legitimately be punished

What are the objects of Walzer’s state sovereignty rights?

Rights of human beings (i.e. individuals)
Rights of political communities (i.e. groups of individuals)

Which types of entity have rights?

Primarily sovereign states
What is the primary moral rule?

What types of argument does Walzer offer?

The forced to fight argument
Presumption of armed resistance
The self-determination argument
Preconditions of human rights
The value of self-government

Walzer’s critics uniformly condemned the theory:

Critics such as Richard Wasserstrom, David Luban, Charles Beitz, Gerald Doppelt
Walzer’s way of anchoring sovereignty rights in the rights of individuals is unclear or inadequate
Walzer derives sovereignty rights from an anti-human rights frameworkThe post-cold war debate:

Geopolitical context after 1989-91:

New challenges to state sovereignty
Economic and social globalization
Impact of genocidal crimes in Rwanda and Bosnia

The current trend:

Additional Geneva Protocols (1977-)
Crimes against humanity...'
Chemical weapons treaty (95, 02, 04-)
Land mines treaty (97-)
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (1993)
The International Criminal Court (1998)

The Responsibility to Protect (2001)

The human rights-based conception

Orend’s six jus ad bellum constraints
Constraints are a combined package
A war is justified only if it satisfies the full package
A war is unjustified if it fails one constraint

Just cause
Right intention
Public declaration by a legitimate authority
Last resortProbability of success
Proportionality

Minimal justice and state rights

Not all sovereign states have rights to territory and sovereignty
Societies which fail to express “minimal justice” forfeit their rights against other states
In other words, it becomes permissible for foreign nations to undertake an ‘invasive military response’

Content of the Minimal Moral Code

Minimal justice = protection of basic human rights
Basic human rights = Orend’s “foundational five”:
Security
Subsistence
Liberty
Equality
Recognition

Weeks 7 & 8

2008-03-06T16:28:00.001-05:00

Wasserstrom, “On the Morality of War”

Two purposes:

Explain and undermine “international realism”
Outline the dilemmas of killing in times of war
(ethical dilemmas for the just war doctrine)

Recap

Non-violence:

As a personal ethic
As a political doctrine

As an absolute principle
As a qualified principle

What arguments are found in Western intellectual history to support an ethics of pacifism and non-violence?
Under what conditions is it justifiable to attack or kill another person?
Is war justifiable? Based on what conditions?

Three most important positions on the ethics of war:

Pacifism & nonviolence
The just war doctrine
International realism

Just war doctrine: constraints & major controversies

jus ad bellum
jus in bello

jus ad bellum

Just cause
Military aggression & self-defence?
Pre-emptive war?
“Humanitarian military intervention”?
Legitimate authority
Right intention
Likelihood of success
Proportionality
Last resort

jus in bello

Proportionality
Non-combatant immunity:

Absolute immunity? The doctrine of double effect? Walzer’s doctrine of double effect?

Pacifism & non-violence

Universal human rights

Just war doctrine

Wasserstrom’s challenge to “international realism”

International realism –
Essence of the position:

Morality is inapplicable to the assessment of war
Discussion of peace and justice in debates about war is naive, irresponsible or totally absurd
“In matters of war, morality has no place”
“The war in Vietnam may be stupid, unwise, or against the interests of the United States... It is neither immoral nor unjust—not because it is moral, or just—because these descriptions are in this context either naive or meaningless or inapplicable”

International realism and the “ancient ethic”

Athenian Generals argued in the Melian Dialogue:
“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”
von Clausewitz said that
“War is the continuation of politics by other means”
Thrasymachus argued that:
“Justice is the advantage of the stronger”
Hans Morganthau said that:
“The state has no right to let its moral disapprobation… get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the principle of national survival”

Main variants:

Descriptive realism
Analytic realism
Prescriptive realism

Descriptive international realism asserts:

Matters of war are uniformly decided on grounds of national interest or expediency rather than by appeals to what is moral
Allowing morality to enter the war debate is a category mistake
To talk in moral terms is naive
Athenian Generals:
“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”
von Clausewitz:
“War is the continuation of politics by other means”
William Tecumseh Sherman said:
“War is hell”

These are a factual claims
Decided by looking at the empirical facts

Answering descriptive international realism

We frequently do see examples of nations placing morality over national interests
National interests are always coupled with national values and ideals
Harry Truman & Dean Acheson:
Truman after dropping atomic bombs (August 6 &9 ’45):
“Having found the bomb we have to use it. We have used it against those who have attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbour, against those who have starved and beaten our prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretence of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans”
Acheson during Cuban Missile Crisis (October ‘62):
“Judgment centred on appraisal of dangers and risks, weighing of the need for decisive and effective action against considerations of prudence; the need to do enough, against the consequences of doing too little. Moral talk did not bear upon the problem.”
Are matters of war (always?) decided via national interest and expediency, rather than by appealing to moral considerations?
Disregarding and suppressing moral considerations?

Analytic international realism asserts:

Morality is meaningless in times of war
War is an exceptional realm where “anything goes”
War is a unique because everything is permissible
To talk in moral terms is absurd
Two underlying propositions:
Universal proposition that all morality is meaningless
Scepticism about the absence of international law

Answering analytic international realism:

All morality is meaningless...
All of us appear to understand “moral language”
Moral considerations are intelligible
Scepticism about international law...
The law isn’t the complete moral story
Our moral language offers more than concepts of condemnation and punishment

Wasserstrom’s diagnosis:

—War presents a “most troublesome moral dilemma”
Accusation that one’s country is involved in an unjust war is personally very threatening
Penalties for opposition and resistance

The relief is immediate; the moral heat is off

--> War is unique because everything is permissible??
--> War is unique because killing and violence are permissible in contexts and conditions they otherwise would not be

Prescriptive international realism asserts:

Matters pertaining to war should always be decided on grounds of national interest or expediency rather than any discussion of what is moral
In the context of war, talking in moral terms is irresponsible and wrong
Thrasymachus argued that:
“Justice is the advantage of the stronger”
Hans Morganthau said:
“The state has no right to let its moral disapprobation… get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the principle of national survival”
Truman in August ’45:
“Having found the bomb we have to use it. We have used it against those who have attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbour, against those who have starved and beaten our prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretence of obeying international laws of warfare.”
“We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans”

Two main arguments:

Moralizing is always a source of increasing conflict
National interests always should outweigh other moral considerations
Only for those involved in political leadership, national interests always should outweigh other considerations

Human rights: foundations and criticisms

The human rights concept:

All human beings, regardless of who we are, and where we were born, are owed a minimum standard of treatment à
Some basic human needs and interests are so important they should be respected at all times, for every person, no matter what it will cost à
When human rights come into conflict with the social good, rights trump overall good

Different species:

Legal rights
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“The Charter”)
Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”)
Moral rights
“Values that respect the dignity and worth of each person”
“Rights” of self-determination
It’s wrong to deceive your friend on purpose
Universal human rights
Rights located in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of 1948
Rights that against genocide, slavery, torture and so on
Virtually the same spirit:
Certain needs and interests are so crucial they should be respected all the time, for every human being, no matter what it will cost
When human rights come into conflict with the social good, rights trump overall good

Three components:

A right held by individuals
A right held universally
A right held equally

The human rights-based political ideal:

The only thing capable of dislodging our universal duty to protect human rights is when those in question have already forfeited their rights by performing their own prior acts of human rights violation
Violations of human rights are justified only in situations where they are intended to protect other human rights

The human rights revolution:

Growing & globalizing

U.N. Declaration of HR (1948)
U.N. Genocide Convention (1948)
U.N. Human Rights Council (1946)
The Council of Europe “Statute #1” (1949)
Regional treaties (OAS Charter)
National Charters of Rights
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (1993)
The International Criminal Court (1998)

Deepening

Basic human rights
Civil & Political Rights
Social Rights
Minority & Group Rights
Environmental Rights

Orend’s foundations:

Religion as justification
Legal positivism
Moral convention
Prudence
Rawls’s argument
Human dignity
Consequentialism
Inference
Vital needs

“Human rights inflation”:

Basic rights vs. equality rights
John Rawls talks of “human rights proper”:
The right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, and the right to formal equality
Natural context: international society
Modern society has cultivated an open concept:
A human rights violation is any situation where your equality or status before the law is being neglected
People seek redress at their “human rights office”
Natural context: a functioning democracy

Minimum moral standards below which we should not fall
vs.
Ultimate moral ideals toward which we should strive

Foundations

Start with “elements of a good justification”:
What standards of justification are we working with?
To show adequate grounds for people to believe in the truth of a proposition and guide their conduct by it
Every justification should rest on some set of premises and principles using a valid chain of reasoning
Preferably, via set of “mutually supporting” claims
Is moral/political debate different from justification and science and logic?
Science and logic:
1+1 = 2
When heated to 100%, pure H20 turns into vapour (?!)
Arts, ethics and culture:
All 20th century painting leads back to Picasso
“It is wrong to lie under oath in court”
“It is wrong to murder your friends and relatives”
“We are all owed a minimum standard of treatment of vital human needs and interests”

Three basic strategies:

Law of nature / human nature
The social contract
Positive laws and moral conventions

Striving for universality:

The universal community of humankind
Universal friendship
Whittled down to a basic minimum
Against international realism
Against particularism & state-ism

Moral convention

Shared beliefs in a living society
Custom and regular ethical practice
Orend’s problem: some cultures resist human rights
Walzer’s answer: thick and thin morality

Human dignity

“The inherent dignity of human beings”
Failing to protect human rights violates human dignity
Orend’s problem: “substantial vagueness”
Is the value of human dignity self-evident?
How can we improve this argument?

Consequentialism

Our benchmark should always be: advancing human happiness, promoting well-being
Human rights have an impressive record of promoting happiness and well-being, so we should always obey them
Problem: if well-being is our benchmark, why shouldn’t we torture terrorists?
“Consequentialist” human rights have shrunk completely from our original vision

Inference:

Hart’s argument: every specific entitlement implies at least one general right
(i.e., a general right to freedom)
The general right to freedom is a prototype for universal human rights
Problems:
Seems to make human rights inferior to “lesser” rights
Leads to a (single) right of liberty too narrow compared to what human rights advocates desire

Here’s the structure of Hart’s argument:

Everyone has a right to something
Some other things are necessary for enjoying the first thing as a right, whatever the first thing is
Therefore, everyone also has rights to the other things that are necessary for enjoying the first as a right

Shue’s expansion:
Basic rights include: i) security of the person, ii) basic subsistence and iii) fundamental liberties
These ones are prior to all other rights
One can’t have any entitlements without antecedent having basic rights satisfied

Three strategies:

Human nature
The social contract
Moral convention

Striving towards universality:

Universal community of human beings
Universal friendship
Towards a basic minimum

Minimum moral standards below which we should never fall
vs.
Ultimate moral ideals toward which all of us should strive

Three critiques:

The Marxist critique
The Feminist critique
The East Asian critique

The Marxist critique

Human rights function only within a market society
The central claim: Human rights are not universal, and have relevance only in a market society

Defects of market society

Market society is composed of individual people
We all have roughly the same basic needs in terms of survival, shelter, nutrition, development, self-respect
But, people in a market society occupy vastly different roles:
Some are owners, who maintain control of producing what is needed for survival and flourishing
Others are workers who need their jobs to survive, and have very little bargaining power over those who employ them
Owners become more free, always able to provide basic needs for themselves using the “surplus value” contributed by their workers
Workers become alienated, unable to control their lives, subject to repression by owners
Marx’s conclusion:

Human rights are part of the mythology of market society:

They exist primarily to create an illusion of universal freedom and equality
They steer peoples’ minds away from their own economic entrapment and exploitation
They evolved in the context of market society, and their purpose has always been to create ideal conditions for the functioning of a free market
But free markets typically benefit a small ruling elite by violently repressing a powerless ‘working class’
By entrenching and enforcing human rights, we advance defective capitalism

The central claim: Human rights are not universal, and have relevance only in a market society

Orend’s answer: in the modern world, human rights are nevertheless genuinely universal minimal standards of decent treatment

The feminist critique

The central claim: Human rights are actually derived from a “male ethic”

Within the male ethic, we often presuppose: i) isolated and separate individuals, against ii) a natural background of social competition
The male ethic is “artificial and assertive, calculating and competitive, disconnected and disadvantageous”
Whereas other forms of ethical language involve concepts of community, care and nurturing
By entrenching universal human rights, we inadvertently advance the facets of human nature that are calculating and competitive
Orend’s answer:
Women’s liberation has always involved the notion of rights

The “East Asian” challenge

The central claim: Human rights are rooted in Western European ideas about the nature of people and society

Non-European societies (e.g., those in China, Malaysia, India, and throughout Africa) often do not share these ideas
These typically attach high value to culture, heritage, public spirit, and the common good, compared with European societies
Human rights inevitably erode core social values
Human rights are not universal, and actually are unique European creations that could potentially cause great harm if enforced globally

15 minute essay on universal human rights

Choose one of justification for international human rights and one challenge
Decide where you stand. Do you believe the justification OR the challenge rests on a stronger rationale?
Clearly explain the reasoning behind your stance
4. Give support for your position (facts and/or arguments)

Week 5

2008-02-15T09:53:00.000-05:00

January 29th in-class test is graded and ready for pick-up
Pick it up in class or during my office hours
For any questions about the test, email or visit during office hours (Tuesdays 2-3pm, Watson Hall 024)

Four essays:

Sara Ruddick, “Mothers and Men's Wars”
Sara Ruddick, “A Women's Politics of Resistance”
Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Is There a Feminist Tradition on War and Peace?”
Sarah Tobias, “Toward a Feminist Ethic of War and Peace”

Two interrelated questions:

How should we interpret the myth of the masculinity of war & women’s peacefulness?
How should we understand the relationship between “feminism” as a distinctive way of thinking, and the ethics of war & peace?

Two subjects for discussion:

The popular dichotomy
The challenge to modern feminists

The popular dichotomy:

Women are essentially peaceful
Men essentially are not

Women exemplify the commitment to non-violence
Men are intrinsically predisposed to violent behaviour

The feminist challenge:

The popular dichotomy stems from a tempting chain of reasoning:

Individual women --> “Femininity” --> “Motherhood”

Instinctive ethic of “caring” --> (Universal community)

Peacefulness & nonviolence --> Anti-war pacifism

But, many feminists say, we must avoid this deceptive way of thinking

Linked questions:

Are women peaceful by nature? (Is there a “pure maternal peacefulness”?)
Are men naturally warlike? Is masculinity militaristic?
Are there close ties between approaches to i) rationality, ii) war, and iii) masculinity?
Is maternal practice, with its virtues of self-sacrifice and caring, a likely starting point for peace politics?
Should women be used to fight in combat roles, alongside the (male) soldiers?
Lynn Searfoss is a U.S. anti-war activist whose son is stationed in Iraq. She disagrees with the U.S. war in Iraq. But she asserts that she supports U.S. troops fighting there. Is there an inconsistency in Searfoss’s views?

Back to the popular dichotomy & the challenge to feminists

Prevailing forms of the dichotomy:

Women exemplify the commitment to non-violence
Men are intrinsically predisposed to violent behaviour
Virtues of the masculine soldier vs. Virtues of pure maternal peacefulness
Bravery, discipline, strength and patriotism vs. “sheltering, nursing, feeding, kin work, teaching of the very young, tending to the frail and elderly”
“Language of warriors” or “Techno-strategic rationality” vs. Ethics of care & motherhood
Clear-sightedness and unsentimental reasoning during a crisis vs. Women, who see only maimed bodies and needless blood spilled

Images:

Massacre(s) of the Innocents:

http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/r/reni/1/innocent.html
(Guido Reni, 1575)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Matteo_di_Giovanni_002.jpg
(Matteo de Giovanni, 1488)

Returning to the Reconquered Land:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/warpaintings/images/Clausen.jpg
(George Clausen, 1919)

Landing of the Canadian 1st Division:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/warpaintings/bundy1-e.asp
(Edgar Bundy, 1915)

“Counterexamples”:
The Spartan Mother:
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/SpartanWomanShieldBarbier.jpg

Liberty Leading the People:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255/la/bigliberty.jpg
(Delacroix, 1830)

Rosie the Riveter:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/rosie-image51.jpg
http://obt.lcsc.edu/rosiesribs/images/Rosie%2520the%2520Riveter.jpg

The problem:
Individual women --> “Femininity” --> “Motherhood” Instinctive ethic of “caring” --> (Universal community) Peacefulness & nonviolence --> Anti-war pacifism

This chain “essentializes” the nature of women, indeed, all of human nature

A. It’s an oversimplification

A sweeping generalization such as this gives no insight into complex human nature
Women are individuals, not examples of one essential type

B. It also reinforces harmful stereotypes...

Elaine Donnelly: “the long-standing moral imperative that men must protect women from physical harm”
The meek woman is being protected by the powerful man
Women = dependant on man
Man = free & strong

C. It throws the burden on to the shoulders of women

“It’s up to women to change the world” by bringing about a peaceful politics and social ethos

Ruddick’s argument:

“Pure” maternal peacefulness doesn’t exist: it’s a deeply embedded mythology of modern society
(Nor does the “essentially” brave male soldier exist)
But, Ruddick says, maternal practice is nevertheless a natural resource for peace politics
A Women’s Politics of Resistance:
Participants are women (mostly?)
Invokes symbols of femininity
Designed to resist militaristic practices and policies by their governments
The ‘Madres’ of Argentina/Chile provide a powerful example of Ruddick’s aspirations bringing about results

Questions revisited:

Are there close ties between i) ideas of rationality, ii) war, and iii) masculinity?
Is maternal practice, with its virtues of self-sacrifice and caring, a likely starting point for peace politics?
Are women peaceful by nature? (Is there a “pure maternal peacefulness”?)
Are men naturally warlike? Is masculinity militaristic?

Week 4

2008-02-08T13:19:00.000-05:00

Elizabeth Anscombe

Catholic philosopher
Not primarily a theologian
Philosophical thinker seeking to “ground” Catholic ideas

Anscombe’s “War and Murder”

The problem of “legitimate violence”
The modern law of war

The problem of legitimate violence

What is the just attitude to the exercise of violent power on the part of rulers and their subordinates?

Two attitudes:

The world is an absolute jungle, and the exercise of violence is only a manifestation of this
It is both necessary and right that there should be “legitimate violence”, and the world is much less of a jungle than it would be without it

Two options:

Should we withdraw from the world? (e.g., like the Quakers & the Amish)
Should we defend civilization, even if violence is necessary, in order to preserve Christian values

Augustine’s problem:

St. Augustine
400 ad
Christianizing Roman Empire
Threats from foreign “uncivilized” enemies
Christian charity: The Sermon on the Mount
Defence of the Church, preservation of civilization

Modern laws of war

The war convention / just war theory:

Ethics of going to war (jus ad bellum)

“Just cause”
“Last resort”

Ethics of soldiers’ actions “in the field” (jus in bello)

Civilians & “non-combatant immunity”
Prisoners of war

International law / the law of armed conflict:

Hague Conventions (1899/1907)
IV - Laws and Customs of War on Land
V - The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land
VI - The Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities
IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War

Geneva Conventions & Add. Protocols (1949/1979/1980)
1949 Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons
1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Treaty)

The modern laws of war rely on a set of ancient categories and distinctions:

Just war vs. unjust war
jus ad bellum vs. jus in bello
Combatant versus non-combatant
“Discrimination”
“The immunity thesis”

Anscombe’s essay:

The problem of “legitimate violence”
The modern law of war

Christian ethics of pacifism
Non-combatant immunity (legal principle in laws of war)

Several stages:

Use of violence by the sovereign ruler is necessary and right

The world is less of a jungle because of rulers and laws
The power to do violence is essential to having laws
Violence is necessary for civilization

The “rightness” of legitimate violence applies to:

Obedience to society’s law (internal dissention)
Rebelliousness
Criminality
Defence against aggressors (external enemies)
Foreign military invaders
Bandits, warlords and other threats

So far so good – an answer to St. Augustine’s problem:

Society is essential to the common good; without violence society is impossible
But, why is this just attitude justifiable?
By what grounds do we decide when doing violence is legitimate?

Basic answer:

It is always wrong to commit murder
(the bedrock of Christian pacifism)
Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent
We should follow the principle of non-combatant immunity because it distinguishes the civilians (who are innocent) from the soldiers (who are guilty)
Within Anscombe’s approach, intention is the basis for deciding whether killing is justifiable

What is murder?

Killing of the innocent by direct aim or directly chosen means

Questions for discussion:

Ethics of universal conscription
The “jungle” as a metaphor of human nature & society
Internal dissention à External enemies
Migration à building a world with walls

Debate about the immunity thesis

Anscombe
Fullwinder
Alexander
“Just war theory” & “The War Convention”
The modern Law of Armed Conflict
Discrimination
The immunity thesis

What are the pivotal questions?

Under what conditions is killing justifiable?
When does a person relinquish the right to life?
Can we find a clear distinction between soldiers and civilians during times of war?
Can we defend the immunity thesis?

Non-combatant immunity:

Absolute immunity for non-combatants
Anscombe’s doctrine of double effect
Fullwinder’s doctrine of double effect
Walzer’s modified doctrine of double effect

Why is the debate important?

Discriminating combatants from non-combatants is crucial to just war theory
Discrimination enables us to hold that some wars are justifiable
Not just facts
Morally relevant characteristics

The immunity thesis enables us to shelter large numbers of civilians from the curses of war

Target selection & military necessity:
Land mines
Altitude bombing

Anscombe’s immunity thesis: innocence

Innocence

Answering St. Augustine’s problem:
Society is essential to the common good; without violence society is impossible
Violence done for society’s benefit, under the sovereign’s authority, is justifiable
But, when exactly is killing justifiable?
On what grounds do we decide who is liable to be killed?
Who has surrendered their right to life?

Basic answer (as above):

It is always wrong to commit murder
(the heart of Christian pacifism)
Murder is the intentional killing of the innocent
We should follow non-combatant immunity since it distinguishes civilians (who are innocent) from soldiers (who are guilty)
Within Anscombe’s approach, intention is the basis of deciding whether killing is justifiable

Anscombe’s two problems:

Christianity’s absolute prohibition on murder
The permissiveness of intention

Doesn’t Christian pacifism always condemn killing? (doesn't it involve an absolute prohibition?)

“Yes and no”
Pacifism originates from Christianity and the condemnation of killing found in Christian tenets
The “prevailing interpretation”...
New Testament prohibits legitimate violence
Old Testament condones it (even promotes it)

The prevailing view has two defects:

It prohibits: i) all use of force by rulers, and ii) soldiering as a profession
Thus, it's impracticable “in the jungle”
And, it results in: “universal forgetfulness of the law against killing the innocent”
Suggests Christianity is an “ideal and beautiful religion, impracticable except for a few rare characters”
Teaches people to make no distinction between shedding of innocent blood and shedding of any blood
Seeing no way to avoid violence and killing, people set no limits
“The absolute prohibitions of Christianity by no means exhaust its ethic”

The doctrine of double effect

Neither your aim nor your chosen means can be to kill an innocent

The immunity thesis --> doctrine of double effect

Isn’t intention way to permissive? (i.e. subject to abuse?)

Categories of targets:

Soldiers, officers, suppliers, armament factory workers; those who contribute directly to the war effort
The entire civilian population

Fullwinder’s immunity thesis: self-defence

Objectives:

To fortify and focus the immunity thesis
Improve the Doctrine of double effect
His challenge: to jettison Anscombe’s emphasis on “intention”
Two commonplace ways to defend immunity thesis:
Anscombe’s idea of innocence (Criminality model)
Mavrodes’s idea of the law “standing alone” (Conventionalist model)
Fullwinder’s idea: self-defence (Aggression model)
...Killing is justified only in situations of self-defence

Anscombe’s approach presupposes “criminality”:

Combatants can justifiably be killed because they are guilty
Non-combatants can’t justifiably be killed because they are innocent
But, certain combatants seem “innocent” and certain non-combatants “guilty”

Combatants:
Soldiers are often drafted, unwilling participants

Non-combatants:
Civilian non-combatants are often more like direct participants
Medicals, clerks, cooks, politicians, political writers ...
Farmers, spouses, tailors, transport drivers

Hence, Anscombe’s criminality model breaks down

Non-combatant immunity:

Absolute immunity for non-combatants
Anscombe’s doctrine of double effect
Fullwinder’s doctrine of double effect
Walzer’s modified doctrine of double effect
How do we distinguish between combatants and non-combatants?
How to defend the immunity thesis?
Use a principle of self-defence ...
Fullwinder invokes the ‘principle of self-defence’:
“It is morally permissible to kill someone whose actions put your life directly and immediately at risk and that is the only way to end the threat”

Two arguments:

Analogical argument (Jones versus Smith)
Wrongness of an action that forces you into fight

P1* Principle of self-defence: It is only morally permissible to kill someone, in self-defence, who is the agent of a direct and immediate threat to one’s survival (or one’s nation’s survival)
P2* Enemy combatants are agents of a direct and immediate threat to one’s survival (or one’s nation’s survival), and enemy non-combatants are not
C* It is morally permissible to kill enemy combatants in self-defence, but it is morally wrong to kill enemy non-combatants in self-defence

What were our key questions?

Under what conditions is killing justifiable?
When does a person relinquish the right to life?
Can we find a clear distinction between soldiers and civilians during times of war?
Can we defend the immunity thesis?

Self-defence as a foundation for the immunity thesis:

Defence of nation or defence of self?
Using self-defence, can we find a distinction between soldiers and civilians that works during times of war?

Alexander, “Self-Defence and the Killing of Non-combatants: Reply to Fullwinder”

Self-defence easily broadens
Can’t we now also include indirectly involved non-combatants?
For example: i) officers and ii) political leaders in the enemy army?

15 minute essay: The Fullwinder versus Anscombe debate

Central questions:
When is killing justifiable?
How do we maintain a moral distinction between combatants and non-combatants during war?

Select either Anscombe’s or Fullwinder’s account of the immunity thesis.
Summarize its key claims in your own words, and state them clearly in one or two sentences
Explain your reasons for supporting that account

Week 3

2008-01-24T12:00:00.000-05:00

Points to note:

King held that nonviolent civil disobedience is sometimes right
Sometimes it is right to break the law
But there are very compelling reasons to always uphold the law
So what is King’s moral argument for nonviolent civil disobedience?

Three parts:

1. In general terms, which type of pacifism/nonviolence are we talking about?
2. Why is fidelity to law so important? What’s the problem with break the law?
3. What is MLK’s moral argument for nonviolent civil disobedience?

What kind of pacifism is King’s “Letter”?

Letter written while King was jailed for “parading without a permit”
Major text of U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1955-68) which ultimately brought to an end racial segregation
This is the most famous moral argument given during the modern era for nonviolent civil disobedience

Three general categories of pacifism:

Spiritual pacifism (e.g. Christ, Gandhi)
Political pacifism (Gandhi, Walzer #1)
Institutional pacifism (Kant, Walzer #2)
King is influenced by Christian pacifism
This is primarily a political pacifism, influenced by Gandhi’s Satyagraha
King’s purpose is to define the underlying philosophy of the Civil Rights Movement

Gandhi’s Satyagraha:

“A type of political activism excluding the use of violence in any shape or form”

Difference #1

Two sides of Satyagraha:

Nonviolence as a political strategy
Nonviolence as a moral argument

As a political strategy:

Sets a powerful example
Confirms the correctness of a moral position
Confirms the depth of commitment to a worthy cause
Justice of the cause will “grow” within your opponent

As a moral argument:

King believed that nonviolent civil disobedience is sometimes right
Why did he believe this?
What are the major challenges?
Is the moral argument a convincing one?

Difference #2:

U.S. society includes the “rule of law”
The movement needs to rely on the U.S. Constitution

King is writing to two audiences:

1. Radical elements of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement

Black Power Movement; Racial separation, Black nationalism, and the necessity of violence
Malcolm X: “Freedom by any means necessary”
If the cause is just, why shouldn’t we resort to violence?

2. Moderate Southern religious leaders who held that reform should take place in the courts, not “on the street”.

Lawbreaking was “unwise and untimely”
Fidelity to law is essential to justice
How can it be right to break the law?

The problem with lawbreaking:

Fidelity to law is a fundamental value and an essential part of justice
Queuing behaviour
Traffic regulations
Contracting with your business partner

Legal rules sustain our society
We benefit from the rule of law

We comply with the legal order
We consent to the legal order

“The ethics of making exceptions for yourself”
Self-serving exceptions?
Exceptions for unjust laws?

King’s moral argument

“An unjust law is no law at all” (St. Augustine)
How do we decide?

Argument #1

Lawbreaking for Civil rights activists is different: their cause is right
Supreme Court decision of 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) prohibited segregation in public schools
Still, this involves conscious lawbreaking

Argument #2

“An unjust law is no law at all” (St. Augustine)
“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God”
“An unjust law is a code out of harmony with the moral law”
An unjust law human law not rooted in the eternal law and natural law (St. Thomas Aquinas)

The eternal law:

Any law that uplifts the human personality is just
Any law that degrades the human personality is unjust
Segregation reveals radical inequality within the law
“Difference made legal”

Argument #3:

Segregation is law of an “undemocratic character”
A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that had no part in enacting it
Segregation reveals radical inequality in the law...
“Difference made legal”

Critical summary questions:

Is the moral argument compelling?
Is King’s account of nonviolent civil disobedience radical enough?

King’s constraints on nonviolent civil disobedience

Non-violent political campaigns have four stages:

Gathering of facts about injustices
Attempts to eliminate injustices via negotiation
Personal cleansing meant to resist hatred and aggression
Non-violent civil disobedience

MLK’s constraints:

“One who breaks the law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty”
Openness
Love
Self-sacrifice

Rawls’s renowned constraints:

Principled conditions

Civil disobedience is right only if it is:

Public
Non-violent
Conscientious yet political
Contrary to the law
Aimed to create reform in government policies
This is how the law advances
This is how a just society fixes a spotlight on its gross injustices

Proposition taken for granted by King and Rawls:

Collective disobedience over individual disobedience
What about “private injustices”?

King concludes by saying:

“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him/her is unjust, and who willing accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law”
...In reality expressing the highest respect for law

---

Last points about King’s nonviolent civil disobedience:

If your cause is just, why is it wrong to break the law?
If your cause is just, why shouldn’t you resort to violence?

MLK’s constraints:

Openness
Love
Self-sacrifice

One who breaks the law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him/her is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law

Aboriginal Peoples – at a turning point

Fidelity to law is a fundamental value and an essential part of justice
Respect for law seems a bit cynical
Willingness to accept penalties seems too much to ask
Why shouldn’t our movement turn over into violence?

Kant’s perpetual peace thesis:

“The way to bring about perpetual peace is to establish a federation of separate republican nation-states”
An early precursor of the “democratic peace hypothesis”

What does Kant mean by “republican”?

For Kant, “republican constitution”
= non-despotic society
= democratic society

Three principles:

Citizens are all free
Citizens are subject to the same domestic government
Citizens are legally equal under the law

“It is the only constitution [type of government] which can be derived from the idea of the original contract, upon which all rightful legislation of a people must be founded”

“The way to bring about perpetual peace is to establish a federation of separate republican nation-states”

Three types of pacifism:

Spiritual pacifism
Political pacifism
Institutional pacifism

Two underlying propositions:

The republican form of government offers the prospect of perpetual peace
A state of peace must be formally instituted

Republican government offers the promise of peace

Republican citizens are unlikely to embark on war
Despotic government is inclined toward war

Republican government is special because citizens are unlikely to embark on war

Consent of citizenry is required before declaring war
Citizens understand the supreme cost of war:
They do the fighting; they pay for the war
Citizens sooner or later suffer war’s antagonisms
Hence, citizens have a “natural hesitation” to non-essential or unjust wars

Despotic government is inclined toward war

Dictators aren’t “fellows citizens”, but rather like owners of the state
“It is the simplest thing in the world to go to war”. “War will not force him to make the slightest sacrifice”
The dictator can “decide on war without any significant reason, as a kind of amusement”
For these reasons, dictatorships resort to war with no hesitation

Problems with Kant’s argument:

The perpetual peace thesis is a factual proposition
What does the evidence tell us?
Are republican countries less inclined to go to war?
In our own times:
Republican citizens acquire militaristic tendencies (e.g. the United States, France, Israel)
Despotic regimes show reluctance to go to war (e.g. North Korea, China, Cuba, Myanmar)

Critical summary question:

How close is the relationship between the democratic peace hypothesis, Kant’s perpetual peace idea, and the state of enduring peace they supposedly bring about?

Shouldn’t this suggest a “worldwide republic”?

Separate nation-states are a “natural” form of political community
Laws progressively lose their impact as the government increases its range
A world republic would become: i) a “soulless despotism”, or ii) “a thousand petty fortresses”
Either: i) a constant state of war, or ii) permanent anarchy

The PPT is also rooted in the “spirit of commerce”

Citizens of a republic will engage in commerce
Commerce pacifies competition among nation-states

Cobden’s great project:

In 19th Britain, Richard Cobden argued that trade is the roadmap to peace
“In the present day [1800s], commerce is the grand panacea, which, like a beneficent medical discovery, will serve to inoculate with the healthy and saving taste for civilization all the nations of the world.”

Problems with commerce as panacea:

Trade may actually foster greater competition
Perhaps this creates new antagonisms
Trade, as Kant says, is the “actual mechanism of human inclinations” that produces perpetual peace
Trade --> economic self-interest --> peace
A major reversal; pacifists typically link peace to the “better angels” of human nature

A state of peace must be formally instituted

A suspension of hostilities is not in itself a guarantee of peace

State of war
Modus Vivendi
Wide consensus
Unity in a single community

Cheyney Ryan’s interpretation of pacifism:
Pacifism is “the intent to acknowledge another person’s status as a fellow creature”
Our labels and categories create the distance necessary to ignore feelings of human community
Gandhi’s tragic choice:
Should we submit to animal instincts?
Should we turn away from the worst of human nature?
Should we become brutish animals?
Should we follow the “better angels of our nature”?

Conclusion:

Kant’s “perpetual peace thesis”:
The way to bring about perpetual peace is to establish a federation of separate republican nations

Walzer’s “Theory of Aggression”

The nature of international society
The underlying philosophy of the laws of war
Sovereign states possess rights in the international community similar to how individuals possess rights in domestic society
We can comprehend the rights of states in much the same way as we comprehend the rights of individuals
This is the ‘domestic analogy’

Two presumptions follow:

Presumption in favour of armed resistance once aggression has begun
Presumption that resistance can be undertaken by i) the victim, and ii) members of the community

The Theory of Aggression:

There exists an international society of independent states
This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members—above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty
Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act
Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defence by the victim and a war or law enforcement by the victim and any other member of the international community
Nothing but aggression can justify war
Once the aggressor has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished

Philosophical questions within Walzer’s Theory of Aggression?

1. What is the moral argument?

Is it based on the value of stability?
Is it based on universal human rights?
Is it based on the rights of nation-states?

2. How useful is the domestic analogy?

3. Is the theory “radical enough”? Does it give enough flexibility to work toward a just world?

15-minute essay:

Select one of the following three categories of pacifism: spiritual, political or institutional.
Summarize the basic thrust of this category, and state it’s this in one or two clear sentences
Give one or two clear sentences explaining why you think this pro-pacifism argument should be taken seriously

Test study questions

2008-01-22T11:56:00.000-05:00

Details about the test

Location: regular classroom (Ellis Auditorium)
Day & time: regular classroom (Tuesday January 29th, 4:00pm)
Bring minimal books, bags, electronic devices
Bring your books, bags etc. to the front of the class before the test begins

The following readings ARE covered on this in-class test:

Walzer, “Nonviolence and the Theory of War”
Lackey, "Pacifism"
Jesus of Nazareth, "The Sermon on the Mount/The Good Samaritan"
Cheyney Ryan, “The Morality of Pacifism”
Gandhi, “The Practice of Satyagraha”
Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail"
Kant, "Perpetual Peace”
Walzer, “Just and Unjust War”

Below are suggestions for your preparation. The first section contains concepts, definitions, etc. The second contains questions to give you practice choosing your words carefully and developing clear and concise arguments. The test has both multiple choice and short-answer questions.

Questions on the test are drawn from course readings and lectures. Some questions on the test are not covered in the suggestions below.

Concepts & definitions

Mohandas Gandhi
Douglas Lackey
Leo Tolstoy
Jesus of Nazareth
Michael Walzer
St. Augustine
The war convention
International realism
Non-combatant immunity
Just cause
inter arma silent leges
Clausewitz
Universal pacifism
Anti-killing pacifism
Anti-coercion pacifism
Private pacifism
Anti-war pacifism
The Biblical prohibition
The sacredness of life view
The right to life argument
Christian pacifism
Political pacifism
Institutional pacifism
The ‘moral exemplar’ argument (e.g. Tolstoy)
Gandhian pacifism
St. Augustine’s ‘limited pacifism’
Pacifism/nonviolence as personal ethic
Pacifism/nonviolence as political doctrine
Pacifism/nonviolence as absolute principle
Pacifism/nonviolence as qualified principle
The ancient ethic
The Jewish law
The new Christian ethic of nonviolence
Thrasymachus of Chalcedon
Instrumental value
Intrinsic value
Nonviolence as a political strategy
Nonviolence as a moral argument
The content of Satyagraha
Respect for self
Respect for fellow human beings
The best of religious traditions
Universal community of humankind
Universal human rights
Militarism
‘Perpetual peace’
Satyagraha
The Theory of Aggression
The domestic analogy
Non-combatant immunity
Martin Luther King’s principle of non-violent political action
Civil disobedience
Fidelity to law

Short answer-type questions

Explain in your own words a moral argument found in the “The Sermon on the Mount”.
What is ‘the domestic analogy’ and how does it relate to Walzer’s Theory of Aggression?
Describe some of the variants of pacifism we’ve examined in class, and explain in your own words which of the variants you consider the most compelling.
In your own words, outline Walzer’s argument against non-violence.
In your own words, clearly describe your understanding of Walzer’s concept of the “war convention”.
Explain in your own words ONE of Lackey’s variants of pacifism, and give your own argument explaining his challenge against this variant is successful.
Do you think Satyagraha is an effective method of challenging political injustice?
Does Kant support the idea of a “world republic”?
Do you think Satyagraha provides a convincing moral argument? What kind of moral argument do you think it establishes?
What are the differences between Rawls’s and Martin Luther King’s accounts of ‘civil disobedience’?
Is non-violence unique to Christianity?
Does Christian non-violence go beyond the “ancient ethic”?
Why do we consider fidelity to law an important value?
In your own words, explain Martin Luther King’s argument for civil disobedience, including the restrictions MLK places on it and his underlying moral argument.
Clearly explain why you think Gandhi’s satyagraha either does or does not establish non-violence as an absolute moral principle.
Is it ever justifiable to break the law for political reasons?
What is the foundation of Kant’s perpetual peace idea?
What are the major problems with Kantian pacifism?

Week 2

2008-01-18T10:57:00.000-05:00

The Sermon on the Mount

Two helpful distinctions (we’ve looked at both before):

Pacifism/nonviolence as personal ethic
Pacifism/nonviolence as political doctrine

Pacifism/nonviolence as absolute principle
Pacifism/nonviolence as qualified principle

Today's argument:

In this short reading, we encounter a powerful and influential doctrine of nonviolence
But, when we look ‘analytically’ at the underlying moral argument, it becomes difficult to accept it as an unqualified political doctrine

Christ juxtaposes three philosophies:

The ancient ethic
The Jewish law
The new Christian ethic of nonviolence

The ancient ethic:

A view of right and wrong as common today as it is throughout antiquity
“Love your friends, hate your enemies”
“An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”
Athenians in the Melian Dialogue:
-->“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”
Thrasymachus of Chalcedon:
-->“Justice is the advantage of the stronger”
Violence flows naturally out of the ancient ethic

The Jewish law:

The law of Moses
The Ten Commandments of Moses
The laws of a ‘civilized’ society to be built by the Jewish people
“You shall not commit adultery”
“You shall not steal”
“You shall not murder”
The Jewish law includes a prohibition on violence

The new Christian ethic of nonviolence:

Be generous, merciful, forgiving, and loving
Not only in your ‘outward’ actions, but in your heart and soul
The Christian ethic includes the deepest possible commitment to nonviolence flows naturally from this ethic

Against the ancient ethic (#1):

“But now I tell you: love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, so that you will become the sons of your father in heaven”
“But now I tell you: do not seek revenge on who does you wrong. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too”

Against the Jewish law (#2):

“Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.”
“You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.” “But now I tell you: anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her is guilty of committing adultery with her in his heart. So if you right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away! It is much better for you to lose part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell.”
“I tell you, then, that you will be able to enter the Kingdom of heaven only if you are more faithful that the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees, in doing what God requires.”

Preliminary questions:

Is this new creed of nonviolence unique to Christianity?
Does it go beyond the ancients’ view?
Is Christian nonviolence merely a personal ethic?

1. Nonviolence unique to Christianity?

Nonviolence is not (strictly speaking) unique to Christianity

2. Does it surpass the ancients’ view?

Those who follow the Christian ethic will:
‘Receive what God promised’
‘Secure their eternal place in heaven’
‘Become the sons of their father in heaven’

3. Christian nonviolence merely a personal ethic?

An article of personal faith
You owe it to God to adhere to these virtues
Needed to secure your eternal place in heaven

The underlying moral argument:

The principle of nonviolence is easily justified on articles of Christian faith: mercy, forgiveness, and love
But, to anchor it as a political doctrine, it needs to be rooted in some 'universal' ideas

Helpful distinction:

Instrumental value:

“That which has value only in relation to something else, or as a means to achieving some end of fundamental value”

E.g., courage, politeness, economic value ($$)

Intrinsic value:

“That which has value in itself, for its own sake, regardless of its possible value towards achieving some other end”

E.g., human life, human pleasure & happiness

Alternate ‘anchors’ for Christian pacifism

(ideas that might be said to have "intrnsic value" ):

Human happiness
Avoidance of suffering
Respect for human life
Respect for the dignity inherent in human beings
Respect for the moral equality of human beings

Do these 'anchors' enable us to construct a moral argument for nonviolence that is 'absolute'?

Ryan’s “The Morality of Pacifism”

Today's argument:

Ryan’s essay appears to provide a solution to the central dilemma of pacifism
But, if we accept the solution, we seem to empty pacifism of its great power and promise

The central dilemma (as Ryan sees it):

Pacifists assert that it’s always wrong to use violence or resort to war
But, how should we react when we or our loved ones face the threat of violence?
If we follow a), by refusing to defend ourselves against violence, aren’t we ultimately supporting violence, and/or going against nonviolence?
In other words, if violence is truly evil, should we not combat it even when doing so requires the use of violence?

The common challenge against pacifism:

The standpoint of nonviolence is too strong
In the end, the standpoint of nonviolence is ‘self-negating’

Ryan thinks pacifism can be rescued:

Pacifism is a term we use to denote feelings of compassion towards our fellow human beings
These are the source of Orwell’s vulnerable fascist allegory
Orwell’s feeling of “fellow creature-hood” with his vulnerable enemy shows the human feeling that is the essence of pacifism

Ryan detects in Orwell’s story the idea of a ‘universal moral community of humankind’
The morality of pacifism is concerned with this universal community

Conclusion #1:

Pacifism is best understood as “the intent to acknowledge the other person’s status as a fellow creature”
Pacifists desire a world in which we nurture these feelings

Conclusion #2:

Our labels and categories create the distance necessary to ignore feelings of human fellowship

Conclusion #3

In the real world, pacifists can’t always live up to the impulse
But, Ryan says, this should make us reject pacifism

Concluding questions:

Ryan's "rescue" for pacifism as a moral argument is attached to the "impulse" or "feeling" he describes. Does the inner feeling have any ‘moral content’?
Can Ryan’s universal moral community be put forward in a moral argument that comes close to what we have called a political doctrine or absolute principle?

Gandhi’s Satyagraha

Satyagraha:

“A method of political resistance that excludes the use of violence in any shape or form”

The views of Gandhi (and other pacifists) presuppose a kind of a tragic choice:

Should we submit to animal instincts?
Should we turn away from the worst of human nature?
Should we become ignorant beasts?
Should follow the “better angels of our nature”?

Today's reading is really more like two separate readings:

Gandhi’s discussion of India’s anti-colonial independence
Gandhi’s anti-war argument addressed to Britain during WWII

We can examine both parts by dividing Satyagraha into two separate types of argument:

Nonviolence as a political strategy
Nonviolence as a moral argument

1. Nonviolence as a political strategy

We can evaluate a strategy based on whether it achieves success or positive results
Political independence for India
Any other political objective

What is the content of Satyagraha?

Self-sacrifice & humility
Respect for the law
Freedom from anger & retaliation
Restraint
Non-cooperation

“Though citizens never take up arms, they rally, demonstrate, and strike”

General strikes
Mass demonstrations
Boycotts
Sit-ins

Why does Gandhi think Satyagraha is effective?

It sets a powerful example
It confirms the correctness of a moral position
It confirms deeply-held commitments
Consequently, the justice of the cause will “grow” within the opponent

Perhaps Gandhi’s writings display a fatal over-confidence in Satyagraha

“it is not without considerable success in its use in India”
“excellent results”
“amazing success”
“Swaraj is attainable in less than one year”

Especially problematic in the context of WWII

"War is wrong in essence"
Fighting Nazism "without arms"
“You [should] invite Hitler and Mussolini to take what they want of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. If they do not give you free passage out, you [should] allow yourselves, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse allegiance to them"

Question for discussion: Is Satyagraha effective?

India’s successful defeat of Britain might suggests that Satyagraha is effective
Michael Walzer & George Orwell believed it was not...
Dictators utilize violence and repression
Nonviolent resistance is easily crushed

Sharpening the question: Can Satyagraha be effective today?

Modern dictatorships are “scientific” in their methods of repression and use of violence
But, resistance against repression--methods of nonvioence--are also highly evolved and technologically advanced. Consider the following modern creations:
The United Nations
Global media (‘The CNN effect’)
The internet

Three repressive regimes:

Zimbabwe
Myanmar
Nepal

Is Satyagraha likely to be effective as a strategy for victims of repression in these countries?

One final point on ‘effectiveness’:

Violence is often the basis for future government
The birth of a nation, or founding movement of a nation, always endures

2. Nonviolence as a moral argument

More than a strategy
Deeply-held truths
A philosophy that should guide our lives
Satyagraha as a moral argument --> universal principle -->
--> condemnation of violence --> abolishing any excuse for violence

Three separate arguments:

i) Respect for self

Self-love
The human soul is by nature corrupted by hatred, anger, and violence

ii) Respect for fellow human beings

Law saves us from chaos: violence brings violence
The human soul is inclined toward fellowship and love

iii) The best of Religious tradition

Enduring faiths teach #1 & #2
Faiths therefore overlap in supporting satyagraha

Universal community:

Gandhi’s arguments can be interpreted as different versions of a “universal community of humankind”
Self-regard --> regard for family -->
regard for the nation --> regard for all humanity -->
--> regard for the universe

The essence of Gandhi’s view:

We should nurture and even purify this sense of community
We should resist those impulses that push against it

Surely this is a great and noble idea of morality. But, are there problems with it?

Does a universal community exist?
Is it simply, as Walzer might suggest, a "messianic" dream?

What about Gandhi’s other moral arguments?

i) Respect for self

I accept that one’s soul may be purified by self-sacrifice
Should I be condemned for resisting moral tragedies such as the holocaust?

ii) Respect for fellow human beings

I accept the picture of the soul as naturally inclined toward fellowship
Should I be condemned for resisting violence to protect an innocent bystander?

iii) The best of Religious tradition

Conflicting messages are found in the Bible, Koran, Torah, which ‘permit’ certain acts of violence - i.e., no tradition is completely single-minded when it condemns violence
Therefore, if I want to be fully committed to the messages contained in sacred texts, perhaps I should look at all the ‘permissions’ found in them

Final question:

Should we always condemn violence or law-breaking as a method of politics? Is there any situation where violence is permissible?

Critical summary guidelines

2008-01-16T18:28:00.000-05:00

Basics:

40% of your final grade
Each critical summary graded out of 10
You submit only 4 [only your first 4 count]
Submit at the start of class
Submit maximum of one critical summary / class
Length suggestion: approx. 500-750w (2-3p DS)
Write your critical summary on any course reading ...-->
** yes you CAN choose to write on a reading after it has been discussed in class
Maximum one critical summary on any given reading

Return of your critical summaries:

Expect a ‘turnaround’ two weeks after you submit
Returned at the end of class
Past critical summaries can be retrieved at the end of class or during office hours

Writing guidelines:

Select one or more readings
On the basis of your reading of the article and in-class discussion, prepare your own interpretation of the author's argument using one or two clear propositions
Explain the propositions as clearly as you can adding only details you think are necessary
Provide your own position on the argument by stating whether you agree or disagree with the author's standpoint
Add details and/or examples if you think they help to make your own position more persuasive
Edit your critical summary for clarity of language

At a minimum, your critical summary should generally include:

Explanation of the main argument in your own words
Evaluation of that argument where you take a stand

Grading standards to be aware of:

Insight
(Do you tackle an interesting issue? Do you develop a thoughtful argument?)
Clarity
(Is your explanation concise? Is your own point of view understandable?)
Charity
(Do you anticipate objections? Consider the opposing side of the debate?)

Consulting instructor / TA about critical summaries:

Free to speak to the instructor or your TA (Octavian) if you have any questions about: writing style, improve your critical summaries, if your explanation or your own point of view is a defensible one, and so on.

Octavian: 5ob3@queensu.ca - Wednesdays @ 10am, Watson Hall rm 113

Mike Kocsis: 9msk@queensu.ca - Tuesdays @ 2pm, Watson Hall rm 024

TA office hours & contact

2008-01-14T19:26:00.000-05:00

Our Teaching Assistant for PHIL 202 (winter 2008) is Octavian Busuioc.

Email address is: 5ob3@queensu.ca

Office hours: Wednesday @ 10am, Watson Hall rm. 113 (ground floor of Watson Hall)

Week 1

2008-01-14T19:01:00.000-05:00

Walzer’s Nonviolence and the Theory of War

Context
Walzer’s arguments against ‘nonviolent defence’
Evaluation of Walzer’s argument

1. Context

This is the concluding chapter in Walzer’s influential book Just and Unjust Wars (1973)
In that book, Walzer tries to create a theory of the ethics of war
He calls his theory “the war convention”

Ethics of going to war

“Just cause”
“Last resort”

Ethics of individual soldiers’ and officers' actions during a war

“Non-combatant immunity”

Prisoners of war

Proportionality

Walzer’s target is “international realism”

Realism says:

inter arma silent leges
(“in times of war the law is silent”)

Clausewitz – “War is the continuation of politics by other means”

Walzer fails to consider the different varieties of pacifism and nonviolence
He only considers the idea of “nonviolence defence”
“War without weapons”

“You cannot shoot at me because I am not going to shoot at you”
The Gandhian strategy of satyagraha

Perhaps pacifism and nonviolence are somehow connected to the war convention or deeply embedded within it

2. Arguments against ‘nonviolent defence’

Nonviolent defence differs from the war convention in that it concedes the conquest of the country that is being defended and occupied
“Though citizens would never take up arms, they would rally, demonstrate, and strike; and the soldiers would have to respond coercively like the hated instruments of a tyrannical regime”

Challenge #1:

Nonviolent resistance can easily be crushed
Aggressors can use excessive violence and repression

Challenge #2:

If it does succeed, that’s because occupying soldiers empathize with the occupied people and refuse to use violence against them
But here they seem to follow the war convention voluntarily, making non-violence subsidiary to the war convention

3. Evaluation of Walzer’s argument

In our world, is it impossible to imagine nonviolent resistance effectively stopping military occupation?

The United Nations
Global media
The internet

Does Walzer misunderstand the philosophy of nonviolent resistance?
The political community and its ‘shared life’ are easily crushed

But, many individual lives might be saved
Advocates like Gandhi believe that protecting one’s soul from hatred and violence is superior to protecting one’s political community

Lackey’s Pacifism

General aims:

To classify pacifist arguments by their underlying structure
To outline which arguments are strong and which are weak

Seemingly distinct pro-pacifism arguments by:

Albert Schweitzer

Mohandas Gandhi

Leo Tolstoy

St. Augustine

Pythagoras

Jesus of Nazareth

At a philosophical level, we often find the similar ‘types’ or ‘structures’ of argument
Understanding the ‘structure’ of the major pacifist arguments is one of Lackey’s goals

Three major categories:

Universal pacifism
Private pacifism
Anti-war pacifism

Four major structures of argument:

The immorality of killing (universal pacifism)
The immorality of violence (universal pacifism)
Private pacifism (immorality of personal violence)
Anti-war pacifism (immorality of war)

Anti-killing pacifism

Albert Schweitzer
Pythagoras

Anti-coercion pacifism

Mohandas Gandhi
Leo Tolstoy

Private pacifism

St. Augustine

Anti-war pacifism

Anti-killing pacifism

The Biblical prohibition

The sacredness of life view

The right to life

Anti-coercion pacifism

Christian pacifism

The ‘moral exemplar’ argument (e.g. Tolstoy)

Gandhian pacifism

Private pacifism

St. Augustine’s ‘limited pacifism’

Anti-war pacifism

Killing of soldiers

Killing of innocent civilians

‘Consequentialist’ pacifism

The right to life argument:

“The immorality of killing is that it violates the right to life that every person possesses”
If human beings have a right to life, then it is always wrong to kill
Human beings have a right to life
Therefore, it is always wrong to kill

But, what does it mean to say that “human beings have a right to life”?

“..the possession of any right implies the permissibility of defending that right against aggression”

“The right to life implies the right to self-defense, including violent self-defense”

The moral exemplar argument:

General idea:

“Moral action consists in choosing to act in such a way that your conduct could serve as an example for all humankind”

Tolstoy believes that violence comes from feelings of vengeance, hatred, jealousy etc.,

These feelings stem from the evil & animalistic side of our nature

This nature is what deprives humankind of true happiness

Therefore, in order to find true happiness, we should always resist vengeance, hatred, jealousy, and the violence that comes from them

But, why can’t we arrive at true happiness if we commit violence only in self-defense?

Consider the two competing rules:

“Never use violence”
“Use violence only in self-defense”

Which of the two rules is likely to lead to true happiness?

Phil 202* Course outline

2007-12-14T12:19:00.000-05:00

Winter 2008

Classroom: Ellis Auditorium
Class schedule: Tuesday 4:00-5:30; Thursday 2:30-4:00
Course info page: http://qlink.queensu.ca/~9msk/phil202/

Instructor: Michael Kocsis
Office: 024 Watson Hall
Office Hours: Tuesday 2-3pm (also by appointment)
Email: 9msk@qlink.queensu.ca
Phone: 533-6000 EXT# 78431

Course Summary

In this course we will examine some major philosophies of peace and nonviolence. We will begin by looking at readings within the pacifist camp, including both ‘historical’ and ‘analytical’ examples of pacifism. We will then explore the influence pacifism has had in modern debates about the ethics of war. We will survey the tradition of writings known as ‘just war theory’, and critically evaluate a new book by the Canadian philosopher Brian Orend entitled The Morality of War.

Evaluation

Critical summaries (40%) [Instructions TBA in week 1]
In-class test (20%) [Thurs. Jan. 29th @ regular classroom]
Final exam (40%) [Queen’s exam period - April 10-26]

Your grade will consist of; i) four “critical summaries”, ii) one in-class test, and iii) a final exam scheduled by Queen’s during the examination period. Students will submit critical summaries of roughly 500-750w (2-3p, d/s). Each will be graded out of ten, contributing 10% of your overall grade. Details about submission and evaluation of critical summaries will be announced during the first week of class. The in-class test will include multiple choice and short answer questions. The final exam will include multiple choice and short answer questions, as well as essay questions asking you to explain and defend your own position on some major pacifist arguments.

Statement on Plagiarism:

All course work deemed to be in violation of Queen’s policies on academic honesty will be handled according to the procedures and penalties set out in the A&SS calendar. Plagiarism is defined in the calendar as; “submitting an essay written in whole or in part by someone else as one’s own, preparing an essay or assignment for submission by another student, copying an essay or assignment, or knowingly allowing one’s essay or assignment to be copied by someone else for the purposes of plagiarism, using direct quotations or large sections of paraphrased material without acknowledgement, buying or selling of term papers or assignments and submitting them as one’s own for the purpose of plagiarism, submitting the same piece of work in more than one course without the permission of the instructor(s)” Take note that cutting & pasting from the WWW is a form of plagiarism that is easy to detect.

Missed test & Lateness Policy:

If you anticipate missing our in-class test, contact the course instructor in advance. Re-tests will be granted for serious medical or personal reasons. Critical summaries will not be accepted after the Queen’s final term-work deadline.

Writing Tutorial Centre:

Those who feel apprehensive about writing critical summaries might consider contacting Queen’s Writing Centre. The centre provides one-to-one tutorials and regular workshops throughout the term. You can call their office at 613-533-6315 or visit the Writing Centre website at: http://www.queensu.ca/writingcentre/

Textbooks & Resources:

There is one required textbook plus a package of required readings available for purchase or copying at the P&CC/Greenroom. Any change to the reading list will be indicated on the course info webpage (http://qlink.queensu.ca/~9msk/phil202/). The webpage contains all course materials, such as the reading schedule below; suggestions for test/exam review; comment sheet instructions; and course announcements. A folder in Stauffer’s “course reserve” contains a set of course readings, plus resources for additional background. You will benefit from reading the assigned material prior to class.

Required: PHIL 202 Courseware (P&CC / Greenroom)
Required: Orend, The Morality of War (Broadview, 2006)

PHIL 202 – Weekly reading schedule

1. Tuesday Jan. 8

Introduction

2. Thursday Jan. 10

Michael Walzer, “Nonviolence and the Theory of War”
Douglas Lackey, “Pacifism”

3. Tuesday Jan. 15

Jesus of Nazareth, “Sermon on the Mount/ The Good Samaritan”
Cheyney Ryan, “The Morality of Pacifism”

4. Thursday Jan. 17

Gandhi, “The Practice of Satyagraha”

5. Tuesday Jan. 22

Martin Luther King Jr., “A Letter from Birmingham Jail”

6. Thursday Jan. 24

Kant, “Perpetual Peace”
Michael Walzer, “Just and Unjust War”

7. Tuesday Jan. 29

IN-CLASS TEST [regular lecture room – Ellis Auditorium]

8. Thursday Jan. 31

Jan Narveson, “Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis”
Conrad Brunk, “Is Pacifism Morally Coherent? Reply to Narveson”

9. Tuesday Feb. 5

Elizabeth Anscombe, “War and Murder”
Boonin & Oddie, “Is Killing in War Wrong?”

10. Thursday Feb. 7

Fullwinder, “War and Innocence”
Alexander, “Reply to Fullwinder”

11. Tuesday Feb. 12

Sara Ruddick, “Mothers and Men's Wars”
Sara Ruddick, “A Women's Politics of Resistance”

12. Thursday Feb. 14

Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Is There a Feminist Tradition on War and Peace?” (P&CC)
Sarah Tobias, “Toward a Feminist Ethic of War and Peace”

***Winter Break – Feb. 18-22***

13. Tuesday Feb. 26

Richard Wasserstrom, “On the Morality of War”

14. Thursday Feb. 28

Brian Orend, “What Justifies Human Rights?”

15. Tuesday March 4

Brian Orend, “Can Human Rights Withstand Criticism?”

16. Thursday March 6

Brian Orend, Chapter 1: “A Sweeping History of Just War Theory

17. Tuesday March 11

Brian Orend, Chapter 2: “Jus ad Bellum #1: Resisting Aggression”

18. Thursday March 13

Brian Orend, Chapter 3: “Jus ad Bellum #2: Non-Classical Wars”

19. Tuesday March 18

Brian Orend, Chapter 4: “Jus in Bello #1: Just Conduct in War”

20. Thursday March 20

Brian Orend, Chapter 5: “Jus in Bello #2: Supreme Emergencies”

21. Tuesday March 25

Brian Orend, Chapter 8: “Evaluating the Realist Alternative”

22. Thursday March 27

Brian Orend, Chapter 9: “Evaluating the Pacifist Alternative”

23. Tuesday April 1

James Sterba, “Reconciling Pacifists and Just War Theorists”

24. Thursday April 3

Conclusion & Review

Final exam scheduled by Queen’s during exam period (April 10-26).

P&CC Table of Contents

2007-12-14T11:44:00.000-05:00

Here's a revised table of contents for the course reader:

Michael Walzer, "Nonviolence and the Theory of War" p. 1

Douglas P. Lackey, "Pacifism" p. 24

Jesus of Nazareth, "The Sermon on the Mount/The Good Samaritan" p. 5

Cheyney Ryan, “The Morality of Pacifism” p. 14

Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter from the Birmingham City Jail" p. 17

Gandhi, “The Practice of Satyagraha” p. 8

Kant, "Perpetual Peace” p. 20

Michael Walzer, “Just and Unjust War” p. 22

Jan Narveson, "Pacifism: A Philosophical Analysis" p. 39

Conrad Brunk, "Is Pacifism Morally Coherent? A Reply to Narveson" p. 50

Elizabeth Anscombe, "War and Murder" p. 66

David Boonin & Graham Oddie, "Is Killing in War Wrong?" p. 74

Robert K. Fullwinder, “War and Innocence” p. 78

Lawrence A. Alexander, “Self-Defence and the Killing of Non-combatants: A Reply to Fullwinder” p. 82

Sara Ruddick, “Mothers and Men's Wars” p. 86

Sara Ruddick, “A Women's Politics of Resistance" p. 94

Elshtain, “Is There a Feminist Ethics of War and Peace?” p. 102

Tobias, “Toward a Feminist Ethics of War and Peace” p. 109

Richard Wasserstrom, “On the Morality of War” p. 151

Brian Orend, “What Justifies Human Rights?” p. 116

Brian Orend, “Can Human Rights Withstand Criticism?” p. 134

James Sterba, “Reconciling Pacifists and Just War Theorists” p. 160