Dear all,
We are convening a workshop on just war theory, titled 'The War of Ethics in the Ethics of War' at the MANCEPT conference from September 8th - 10th.
Please find the abstract below.
Each presenter will have 50 minutes in total, consisting of a 25-30 minute presentation, followed by comments from a discussant and questions from the floor. If you are interested in participating please send an abstract or full paper by June 1st. If sending only an abstract a full paper will be required by July 15th.
Abstracts to be sent to:
Ewan E. Mellor: ewan.mellor@eui.eu
Or Milla Vaha: mevaha@utu.fi
MANCEPT PROPOSAL
The War of Ethics in the Ethics of War
“War is always judged twice, first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting, secondly with reference to the means they adopt.” This is Michael Walzer’s canonical statement regarding the independence of the jus ad bellum from the jus in bello which grounds the principle of the moral equality of combatants within the just war tradition. In recent years this principle has come under sustained critical scrutiny from those who believe it is morally incoherent and philosophically unsubstantiated, led by Jeff McMahan and David Rodin, among others. These scholars instead argue for a principle of the moral inequality of combatants, in which combatants would be individually judged according to the justice of the war in which they are fighting. This morally individualist and cosmopolitan approach to the ethics of war would completely transform the nature and practice of war and, concomitantly, the nature of the international system as a whole. The debate over the principle of the moral equality of combatants is also closely related to a number of other debates within international political theory and international ethics, including the debate between communitarianism and cosmopolitanism, debates about the role and place of individual rights in the international system, and debates about the relationship between moral principles and political decision making.
Although philosophically powerful and persuasive, much of the revisionist literature has been conducted at a high level of abstraction. As such, this workshop seeks to engage with and further the debate about the moral equality of combatants by encouraging contributions that deal with some of the implications of the revisionist argument from a political theory and international relations perspective.
We are convening a workshop on just war theory, titled 'The War of Ethics in the Ethics of War' at the MANCEPT conference from September 8th - 10th.
Please find the abstract below.
Each presenter will have 50 minutes in total, consisting of a 25-30 minute presentation, followed by comments from a discussant and questions from the floor. If you are interested in participating please send an abstract or full paper by June 1st. If sending only an abstract a full paper will be required by July 15th.
Abstracts to be sent to:
Ewan E. Mellor: ewan.mellor@eui.eu
Or Milla Vaha: mevaha@utu.fi
MANCEPT PROPOSAL
The War of Ethics in the Ethics of War
“War is always judged twice, first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting, secondly with reference to the means they adopt.” This is Michael Walzer’s canonical statement regarding the independence of the jus ad bellum from the jus in bello which grounds the principle of the moral equality of combatants within the just war tradition. In recent years this principle has come under sustained critical scrutiny from those who believe it is morally incoherent and philosophically unsubstantiated, led by Jeff McMahan and David Rodin, among others. These scholars instead argue for a principle of the moral inequality of combatants, in which combatants would be individually judged according to the justice of the war in which they are fighting. This morally individualist and cosmopolitan approach to the ethics of war would completely transform the nature and practice of war and, concomitantly, the nature of the international system as a whole. The debate over the principle of the moral equality of combatants is also closely related to a number of other debates within international political theory and international ethics, including the debate between communitarianism and cosmopolitanism, debates about the role and place of individual rights in the international system, and debates about the relationship between moral principles and political decision making.
Although philosophically powerful and persuasive, much of the revisionist literature has been conducted at a high level of abstraction. As such, this workshop seeks to engage with and further the debate about the moral equality of combatants by encouraging contributions that deal with some of the implications of the revisionist argument from a political theory and international relations perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment