Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:29:47.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On War and Innocence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Laura Westra
Laura Westra
Affiliation:
University of Toledo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I propose to examine a notion often used in assessing the morality of war: “innocence”. Assessments of innocence within this context range from Nagel's straightforward working definition of ”currently harmless”, to Richard Wasserstrom's painstakingly legalistic assessment, to Anscombe's definition and discussion of innocence and responsibility.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , Winter 1986 , pp. 735 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nagel, Theodore, “War and Massacre”, in Cohen, Marshall, Nagel, Thomas and Scanlon, Thomas, eds., War and Moral Responsibility, Philosophy and Public Affairs (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974), 19.Google Scholar

2 Wasserstrom, Richard, “The Relevance of Nuremberg”, in Nagel, Cohen and , Scanlon, eds., War and Responsibility, 134–158;Google ScholarPhilosophy and Social Issues (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), 152–187Google Scholar.

3 Anscombe, G. E. M., Nuclear Weapons and Christian Conscience (Exeter: Merlin Press, 1961), 48–62.Google Scholar

4 Nagel, , “War and Massacre”, 19–21.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., 21.

6 Anscombe, , Nuclear Weapons, 48.Google Scholar

7 Wasserstrom, , “Nuremberg”, 134–158.Google Scholar

8 Michalos, Alex, “The Loyal Agent's Argument”, in Beauchamp, T. and Bowie, N., eds., Ethical Theory and Business (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979), 338ff.Google Scholar

9 McDonald, Michael, “Commentary: Noncombatants and Hostages”, in Groarke, L. and Fox, M., eds., Nuclear War: Philosophical Perspectives (New York: Peter Lang, 1985).Google Scholar

10 Shaw, William H., “Deterrence and Deontology”, Ethics 94 (01 1984), 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 3.1.20, Rackham, H., trans., Loeb Edition (London: Harvard University Press, 1975), 127.Google Scholar

12 Michael Fox, “The Nuclear Mindset: Multinational Obstacles to Peace”, in Groarke and Fox, eds., Nuclear War.

13 White, Ralph K., “Images in the Context of International Conflict”, in Kelman, H. C., ed., International Behaviour: A Social Psychological Analysis (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966), 249.Google Scholar

14 Heidegger uses this expression about language through which we re-assure ourselves rather than probe for meaning and raise questions. He uses it chiefly in Being and Time.

15 Fox, , “Nuclear Mindset”, 124.Google Scholar

16 Govier, Trudy, “Thoughts From Under the Nuclear Umbrella”, in , Groarke and , Fox, eds., Nuclear War, 67.Google Scholar

17 Holmes, R. L., “The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters”, Harvard Magazine (03 1983), 56A–56H.Google Scholar

18 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II.Q.64.art.7.

19 Wasserstrom, Richard, “On the Morality of War: A Preliminary Enquiry”, Stanford Law Review 21 (1969), 1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Wasserstrom, Social Issues.