首页> 外文期刊>Journal of military ethics >PUBLIC WAR AND THE MORAL EQUALITY OF COMBATANTS
【24h】

PUBLIC WAR AND THE MORAL EQUALITY OF COMBATANTS

机译:公开战争与战斗人员的道德平等

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Following Hugo Grotius, a distinction is developed between private and public war. It is argued that, contrary to how most contemporary critics of the moral equality of combatants construe it, the just war tradition has defended the possibility of the moral equality of combatants as an entailment of the justifiability of public war. It is shown that contemporary critics of the moral equality of combatants are denying the possibility of public war and, in most cases, offering a conception of just war as exclusively private war. The work of Jeff McMahan is used to exemplify this. Against these contemporary critics, it is argued that the reasons McMahan and others offer against the possibility of the moral equality of combatants undermine not only public war but also the possibility of fully realized and effective political authority. The conclusion is drawn that defenders of the moral equality of combatants must defend the possibility of fully realized and effective political authority over war while critics of the moral equality of combatants must either (I) reject the possibility of fully realized and effective political authority altogether, or, less radically, (2) deny the possibility of fully realized and effective political authority over war.
机译:雨果·格罗蒂乌斯(Hugo Grotius)之后,在私人战争和公共战争之间形成了区别。有人认为,与大多数当代关于战斗人员道德平等的批评家的看法相反,正义战争传统捍卫了战斗人员道德平等的可能性,因为这涉及公共战争的正当性。结果表明,当代有关战斗人员道德平等的批评家否认发生公开战争的可能性,并且在大多数情况下,提供了将正义战争视为完全私人战争的概念。 Jeff McMahan的工作就是例证。反对这些当代批评家的论点是,麦克马汉和其他人提出反对战斗人员道德平等的可能性的理由不仅破坏了公共战争,而且破坏了充分实现和有效的政治权威的可能性。结论是,战斗人员道德平等的捍卫者必须捍卫对战争充分实现和有效的政治权威的可能性,而对战斗人员道德平等的批评者必须(I)完全拒绝充分实现和有效的政治权威的可能性,或者,从根本上说,(2)否认对战争拥有充分实现和有效的政治权威的可能性。

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