首页> 外文期刊>Journal of military ethics >COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF DUE CARE
【24h】

COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF DUE CARE

机译:集体伤害和应有的原则

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This article focuses on the ethical implications of so-called 'collateral damage'. It develops a moral typology of collateral harm to innocents, which occurs as a side effect of military or quasi-military action. Distinguishing between accidental and incidental collateral damage, it introduces four categories of such damage: negligent, oblivious, knowing and reckless collateral damage. Objecting mainstream versions of the doctrine of double effect, the article argues that in order for any collateral damage to be morally permissible, violent agents must comply with high standards of care. In order for incidental harm to be permissible, an agent must take pains to avoid such harm even at higher cost to him- or herself. It is argued that accidentally but negligently caused collateral damage may be just as difficult to excuse as incidental harm. Only if high precautionary standards of care are met, can unintended harm to innocents - incidental or accidental - be permissible. In practice, such a strong commitment to avoiding harm to civilians may well lead us to question more generally and rethink more radically how violent conflicts ought to be fought, how military violence ought to be used and whether there are better ways of achieving those aims that we think are legitimate than those we are currently using.
机译:本文重点关注所谓“附带损害”的伦理意义。它发展出一种对无辜者附带伤害的道德类型学,这是军事或准军事行动的副作用。区分意外和偶然附​​带损害,它引入了此类损害的四类:过失,遗忘,明知和鲁re的附带损害。文章反对双重效力原则的主流版本,认为为了使附带损害在道德上是允许的,暴力行为人必须遵守严格的护理标准。为了允许附带损害,即使付出高昂的代价,代理人也必须尽力避免这种损害。有人认为,偶然但因疏忽造成的附带损害可能与附带损害一样难以辩解。只有达到了较高的预防性护理标准,才允许对无辜者造成意外或意外伤害。在实践中,避免对平民造成伤害的如此坚定的承诺很可能使我们提出更广泛的质疑,并从根本上重新思考应该如何进行暴力冲突,如何使用军事暴力以及是否有更好的方法来实现这些目标。我们认为比我们目前使用的合法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号