Most people believe that killing someone, while generally morally wrong, can in some cases be a permissible act. Most people similarly believe that war, while awful, can be justified. Bradley Jay Strawser examines a set of related moral issues in war: when it is permissible to kill in defense of others; what moral responsibility would be required to be liable for such defensive killing; how that permission can extend to whole groups of people; and, lastly, what values undergird the permissibility of that defense, such as individual autonomy. Strawser argues for a rights-based account of permissible defensive harm and an 'evidence-relative' basis for the holding those responsible. His view is that in order to be properly responsible for an unjust harm to be justifiably killed, one must act wrongly according to the evidence available to them. Extending this view, Strawser explores how such a rights-based model can make sense of the wide-spread destructive harms of war. He endorses a revisionist approach to just war theory and argues in its defense; and he also shows how his evidence-relative account supports revisionist just war theory by better grounding it in the real world of modern warfare. Lastly, he offers a new proposal for how targeting in war could better align with respect for the rights of individual persons, and demonstrate how revisionist just war theory-and any rights-respecting just war account more broadly-could conceivably work in practical ways.
Are contemporary soldiers exploited by the state and society which they defend? More specifically, have America's professional service members been uniquely exploited insofar as they have disproportionately carried the moral weight of America's collective war-fighting decisions since the inception of the all-volunteer force post-Vietnam and particularly since 9/11? In this work, Michael Robillard and Bradley Strawser argue that many of American soldiers have indeed been exploited in this unique way. By offering their original normative theory of 'moral exploitation'; the notion that persons or groups can be wrongfully exploited by being made to shoulder an excessive amount of moral responsibility, moral risk, and exposure to 'dirty hands', Robillard and Strawser make the case that such a state of affairs indeed describes America's present relationship with her military. By offering a thorough and in-depth analysis of some of the exploitative and misleading elements of present-day military recruitment, the pernicious civil-military divide existing between military members and the civilian principle both within the organs of government and the public at large, and the stifling effect that 'Thank You for Your Service', 'I support the troops' culture has had on serious public engagement concerning America's ongoing wars, Robillard and Strawser offer a tour de force of eye-opening arguments on the demoralizing state of affairs for the American soldier. They conclude by arguing for several normative and prudential prescriptions to help close this ever-widening fissure existing between America and its military and existing within America herself. In so doing, their work gives a much needed and urgent voice to America's other 1%"--
Most people believe that killing someone, while generally morally wrong, can in some cases be a permissible act. Most people similarly believe that war, while awful, can be justified. Bradley Jay Strawser examines a set of related moral issues in war: when it is permissible to kill in defense of others; what moral responsibility would be required to be liable for such defensive killing; how that permission can extend to whole groups of people; and, lastly, what values undergird the permissibility of that defense, such as individual autonomy. Strawser argues for a rights-based account of permissible defensive harm and an 'evidence-relative' basis for the holding those responsible. His view is that in order to be properly responsible for an unjust harm to be justifiably killed, one must act wrongly according to the evidence available to them. Extending this view, Strawser explores how such a rights-based model can make sense of the wide-spread destructive harms of war. He endorses a revisionist approach to just war theory and argues in its defense; and he also shows how his evidence-relative account supports revisionist just war theory by better grounding it in the real world of modern warfare. Lastly, he offers a new proposal for how targeting in war could better align with respect for the rights of individual persons, and demonstrate how revisionist just war theory-and any rights-respecting just war account more broadly-could conceivably work in practical ways.
Does the lethal use of drones pose any new or difficult moral problems? Or is the controversy over these weapons merely a distraction from deeper questions regarding the justice of war and the United States' bellicose foreign policy? Opposing Perspectives on the Drone Debate pulls no punches in answering these questions as five scholars square off in a lively debate over the ethics of drones and their contentious use in a point-counterpoint debate. The contributing authors are some of the foremost thinkers in international affairs today, spanning the disciplines of philosophy, sociology, political science, and law. Topics debated range from the US's contested policy of so-called "targeted killing" in Pakistan's tribal regions to fears over the damaging effects such weaponry has on our democratic institutions to the more abstract moral questions raised by killing via remote control such as the duty to capture over kill.
Does the lethal use of drones pose any new or difficult moral problems? Or is the controversy over these weapons merely a distraction from deeper questions regarding the justice of war and the United States' aggressive foreign policy? Opposing Perspectives on the Drone Debate pulls no punches in answering these questions as five scholars square off in a lively debate over the ethics of drones and their contentious use. The five authors are some of the foremost thinkers in international affairs today, spanning the disciplines of philosophy, sociology, political science, and law. The topics they debate range from the US's contested policy of so-called 'targeted killing' in Pakistan's tribal regions to fears over the damaging effects such weaponry has on our democratic institutions to the more abstract moral questions raised by killing via remote control such as the duty to capture over kill.
Are contemporary soldiers exploited by the state and society which they defend? More specifically, have America's professional service members been uniquely exploited insofar as they have disproportionately carried the moral weight of America's collective war-fighting decisions since the inception of the all-volunteer force post-Vietnam and particularly since 9/11? In this work, Michael Robillard and Bradley Strawser argue that many of American soldiers have indeed been exploited in this unique way. By offering their original normative theory of 'moral exploitation'; the notion that persons or groups can be wrongfully exploited by being made to shoulder an excessive amount of moral responsibility, moral risk, and exposure to 'dirty hands', Robillard and Strawser make the case that such a state of affairs indeed describes America's present relationship with her military. By offering a thorough and in-depth analysis of some of the exploitative and misleading elements of present-day military recruitment, the pernicious civil-military divide existing between military members and the civilian principle both within the organs of government and the public at large, and the stifling effect that 'Thank You for Your Service', 'I support the troops' culture has had on serious public engagement concerning America's ongoing wars, Robillard and Strawser offer a tour de force of eye-opening arguments on the demoralizing state of affairs for the American soldier. They conclude by arguing for several normative and prudential prescriptions to help close this ever-widening fissure existing between America and its military and existing within America herself. In so doing, their work gives a much needed and urgent voice to America's other 1%"--
Strawser examines several possible ethical justifications for the killing of Osama bin Laden and finds nearly all of them wanting. One, however, he argues is sound: that bin Laden was liable to be killed as a necessary and proportionate act of defensive harm on behalf of innocent people.
Are contemporary soldiers exploited by the state and society which they defend? More specifically, have America's professional service members disproportionately carried the moral weight of America's war-fighting decisions since the inception of the all-volunteer force post-Vietnam and since 9/11? In this volume, Michael J. Robillard and Bradley J. Strawser, who have both served in the military themselves, examine the notion of whether and how American soldiers have been exploited in this unique way, and in so doing offer an original normative theory of 'moral exploitation' - the notion that persons or groups can be wrongfully exploited by being made to shoulder an excessive amount of moral weight.
Using the principles of necessity, effectiveness, and proportionality, the authors develop a framework for evaluating influence operations with an initial screening, conducting a full ethical risk assessment, and preparing a justification statement.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.