This free course introduces and explores the idea of the moral equality of combatants and discusses the question of the basis of liability to killing in war. It invites students to understand and assess the epistemological argument for the moral equality of combatants and other arguments for and against this idea.
Overview
Syllabus
- Introduction
- Learning outcomes
- 1 Three components of the Just War Tradition
- 1 Three components of the Just War Tradition
- The moral equality of combatants
- Can unjust wars be fought justly?
- The independence of the JaB and JiB conditions
- 2 More on Walzer’s theory of self-defence
- 2 More on Walzer’s theory of self-defence
- 3 McMahan’s criticism of Walzer
- 3 McMahan’s criticism of Walzer
- 4 Can unjust combatants fight justly?
- 4 Can unjust combatants fight justly?
- 5 The implications of McMahan’s account
- 5 The implications of McMahan’s account
- 6 Objections to McMahan’s account
- 6 Objections to McMahan’s account
- The epistemological argument
- The voluntariness argument
- Conclusion
- Reading 1 Walzer on the moral equality of soldiers
- The case of Hitler’s generals
- Reading 2 McMahan on the moral equality of combatants
- I The doctrine of the moral equality of combatants
- II The traditional criterion of liability to attack
- III Consent
- A. The boxing match model of war
- Reading 3 Hurka on the moral equality of soldiers
- Glossary
- References
- Acknowledgements
