A Defense of the Traditional War Convention*

@article{Benbaji2008ADO,
  title={A Defense of the Traditional War Convention*},
  author={Yitzhak Benbaji},
  journal={Ethics},
  year={2008},
  volume={118},
  pages={464 - 495}
}
The language of self-defense is used both in justifying wars and in articulating what is right and wrong within wars. In particular, the traditional war ethic, especially as Michael Walzer formulates it in his Just and Unjust Wars, strongly suggests that a just war is a large-scale exercise of the right of self-defense. Yet, critics of this traditional doctrine insist that, in fact, the war convention reflects a particularly repugnant conception of the right of self-defense: “The just war… Expand
Justified killing in an age of radically asymmetric warfare
The growing ability of the US to kill with impunity in war has prompted some to question whether such advantage challenges the moral justifications for inter-combatant violence. This scholarship,Expand
Just War Theory: Revisionists versus Traditionalists
Contemporary just war theory is divided into two broad camps: revisionists and traditionalists. Traditionalists seek to provide moral foundations for something close to current international law, andExpand
Aggression and the symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law*
Recent scholarship in just war theory has challenged the principle of symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This revisionist work, which is increasingly dominating theExpand
War Crimes and Just War Theory
Revisionist just war theory has gained considerable traction in recent years, debunking long-standing principles in the morality of war. This development cannot be ignored by war crimes lawyers.Expand
Toward a Collectivist National Defense
Most philosophers writing on the ethics of war endorse “reductivist individualism,” a view that holds both that killing in war is subject to the very same principles of ordinary moralityExpand
Deploying racist soldiers : a critical take on the ‘right intention’ requirement of Just War Theory
In a recent article Duncan Purves, Ryan Jenkins, and B.J. Strawser argue that in order for a decision in war to be just, or indeed the decision to resort to war to be just, it must be the case thatExpand
Commonsense Morality and the Ethics of Killing in War: An Experimental Survey of the Israeli Population
The morality of killing in war, which has been the subject of debate among philosophers and legal scholars, focuses on two main approaches: the “traditional” and the “revisionist.” The traditionalExpand
The Ethics of War: A New Individualist Rights-Based Account of Just Cause and Legitimate Authority
My thesis focuses upon the ad bellum criteria of just cause and, to a lesser extent, legitimate authority. I begin by developing an account of the individual right to self-defence, grounded upon theExpand
Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants
Abstract Traditional just war doctrine holds that political leaders are morally responsible for the decision to initiate war, while individual soldiers should be judged solely by their conduct inExpand
The state right of self-defense: A claim in need of justification
Jennifer Kling: The State Right of Self-Defense: A Claim in Need of Justification (Under the direction of Bernard Boxill) My dissertation focuses on the nature and conditions of the state right ofExpand
...
1
2
3
...

References

SHOWING 1-8 OF 8 REFERENCES
Killing in War: A Reply to Walzer
Michael Walzer suggests that our common beliefs about individual responsibility and liability become largely irrelevant in the conduct of war. In conditions of war, everything is changed. PoliticalExpand
The Moral Equality of Combatants
According to the Just War tradition a war can only be just if two sets of principles are satisfied. (1) First there is the jus ad bellum. These principles tell us when it is just to start a war.Expand
The Ethics of Killing in War
This paper argues that certain central tenets of the traditional theory of the just war cannot be correct. It then advances an alternative account grounded in the same considerations of justice thatExpand
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SOLDIERS AND THE ETHICS OF KILLING IN WAR
According to the purist war ethic, the killings committed by soldiers fighting in just wars are permissible, but those committed by unjust combatants are nothing but murders. Jeff McMahan assertsExpand
Culpable Bystanders, Innocent Threats and the Ethics of Self-Defense
The moral right to act in self-defense seems to be unproblematic: you are allowed to kill an aggressor if doing so is necessary for saving your own life. Indeed, it seems that from the moralExpand
[IN SELF-DEFENSE].
  • R. Kinoshita
  • Psychology, Medicine
  • Nihon Shika Ishikai zasshi
  • 1965
McMahan takes them to be devastating
    Philosophical Quarterly (forthcoming), I defend the in bello/ad bellum distinction in detail