Contra Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan, neither classical just war theory nor the contemporary rules of war require or support any notion of combatant moral equality. Nations rightly accept prohibitions against punishing enemy combatants without recognizing any legal or moral right of aggressors to kill. The notion of combatant moral equality has real import only in our interpersonal -- and intrapersonal -- attitudes, since the notion effectively preempts any ground for conscientious objection. Walzer is criticized for over-emphasizing our collective responses to war conduct and slighting our personal, extra-political responses
Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-...
The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Accordin...
Book review of Jeff McMahan, Killing in war. UK: Oxford Unuversity Press, 2009. ISBN 9780199548668.p...
Contra Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan, neither classical just war theory nor the contemporary rules...
International law grants to legitimate combatants the right to kill enemy soldiers both in wars of a...
McMahan’s own example of a symmetrical defense case, namely his tactical bomber example, opens the d...
According to the dominant position in the just war tradition from Augustine to Anscombe and beyond, ...
In the tradition of just war theory two assumptions have been taken pretty much for granted: first, ...
The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants holds that combatants on either side of a...
First published: March 2017The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants holds that combatants on...
doctrine is true by definitional fiat; second, that combatants fighting for an unjust cause may, pac...
Modern analytical just war theory starts with Michael Walzer's defense of key tenets of the laws of ...
Neither M. Walzer's collectivist conception of the "moral equality" of combatants, nor its antitheti...
Enemy soldiers in war are permitted to kill one another without moral blame. This permission, though...
Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-...
The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Accordin...
Book review of Jeff McMahan, Killing in war. UK: Oxford Unuversity Press, 2009. ISBN 9780199548668.p...
Contra Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan, neither classical just war theory nor the contemporary rules...
International law grants to legitimate combatants the right to kill enemy soldiers both in wars of a...
McMahan’s own example of a symmetrical defense case, namely his tactical bomber example, opens the d...
According to the dominant position in the just war tradition from Augustine to Anscombe and beyond, ...
In the tradition of just war theory two assumptions have been taken pretty much for granted: first, ...
The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants holds that combatants on either side of a...
First published: March 2017The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants holds that combatants on...
doctrine is true by definitional fiat; second, that combatants fighting for an unjust cause may, pac...
Modern analytical just war theory starts with Michael Walzer's defense of key tenets of the laws of ...
Neither M. Walzer's collectivist conception of the "moral equality" of combatants, nor its antitheti...
Enemy soldiers in war are permitted to kill one another without moral blame. This permission, though...
Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-...
The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Accordin...
Book review of Jeff McMahan, Killing in war. UK: Oxford Unuversity Press, 2009. ISBN 9780199548668.p...