Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
65 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
War
|
A state of usually open and declared armed conflict between states of nations
|
|
|
Terrorism
|
The use of threat of violence against innocent people to elicit terror in them, or in some other group of people, in order to further a political objective.
|
|
|
Torture
|
Any act by which pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
[1] obtaining information [2] punishment for some action [3] intimidation or coercion [4] reasons of discrimination when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent of a public official |
|
|
Moral nihilism regarding war
|
Moral considerations do not apply to war.
|
|
|
Antiwar pacifism
|
Wars are always morally wrong
|
|
|
Jus ad Bellum (provisions of going to war)
|
Legitimate Authority
Just Cause Last Resort Prospect of Success |
|
|
Legitimate Authority
|
War must be declared by a legitimate authority
|
|
|
Just Cause
|
There must be a just cause for going to war.
|
|
|
Last Resort
|
All reasonable alternatives to going to war must be exhausted.
|
|
|
Prospect of Success
|
There must be a reasonable prospect of success
|
|
|
Winning a war counts as success, but in some cases a futile struggle to the death might be justified if the alternative is enslavement or extermination by the opponent.
|
...
|
|
|
Political Proportionality
|
The violence of war must be proportional to the wrong being restricted.
|
|
|
Jus in Bello (provisions governing military activity within war)
|
Military Necessity
Discrimination Military Proportionality |
|
|
Military Necessity
|
The military activity in question must be judged to be necessary in order to bring about some justifiable military end.
|
|
|
Discrimination
|
The deaths of innocent noncombatants must not be directly intended either as an end of the military action or as a means to some further military purpose.
|
|
|
Military Proportionality
|
Whatever good end the military action in question is supposed to serve, the likely evil that results from that activity must not be grossly out of proportion to the intended good ends of that activity.
|
|
|
Doctrine of Double Effect: 4 main provisions
|
Intrinsic Permissibility: the action in question, apart for its affects, is morally permissible
Necessity: bringing out a good effect is impossible unless the bad effect is brought out as well. Non-intentionality: the bad effect is not intended - it is neither one's end or a chosen means in order to bring about an intended end. Happened by mistake. Proportionality: the bad effect that is brought about be the action is not out of proportion to the good that this being aimed. |
|
|
Jus in Bello
|
(provisions governing military activity within war)
|
|
|
Jus ad Bellum
|
(provisions of going to war)
|
|
|
DDE’s connection with natural law theory
|
It helps define the NLT in terms of war. It is connected to a direct violation of a human good.
|
|
|
The hysterectomy example
|
Action = removal of cancer
The sought after end = saving the woman’s life Unintentional side affect = death of the fetus |
|
|
Craniotomy example:
|
Action = Killing the fetus (crushing the skull)
The sought after end = saving the woman’s life |
|
|
How JWT reflects some of the provisions of DDE
|
It addresses the question whether it is morally permissible to bring about evil consequences in order to pursue a good outcome.
According to DDE... cases in which an action has some good affects and one bad affect can be considered morally permissible if meets the DDE 4 provisions. DDE: necessity, non-intentionality, proportionality JWT: necessity, discrimination, proportionality. |
|
|
Tactical v. terrorist bomber cases as illustration of the application of JWT
|
Tactical: bombing without the intention to kill or terrorize innocent others.
Terrorist: bombing with the intention to kill or terrorize other innocent people |
|
|
Khachadourian's definition of ‘terrorism’ and 4 types
|
Predatory Terrorism (aimed at monetary gain)
Retaliatory Terrorism (aimed at revenge) Political Terrorism (aimed at political change) Moralistic / Religious Terrorism (aimed at a moral or religious end) |
|
|
What constitutes a good definition of ‘terrorism’ according to Khachadourian?
|
Terrorism must be defined in a morally neutral way.
It's definition cannot assume that terror is always wrong, neither can it be too broad and include types of assassination or war that might be considered permissible. |
|
|
K’s use of the principles of Just Cause, Necessity, Discrimination, and Proportion (political and military) to evaluate the types of terrorism.
|
Just Cause: There must be good reason for engaging in aggression (self defense)
Necessity: Last alternative Non-intentionality: distinction between innocent and non innocent Proportionality: The act of military force must be proportionate the amount needed to achieve the goal. |
|
|
The kind(s) of terrorism that might satisfy the ‘just cause’ requirement of ius ad bellum
|
Moralistic terrorism
|
|
|
K
|
Khachadourian
|
|
|
K’s way of distinguishing combatants from non-combatants (4 provisions)
|
The distinction is a moral one
it is a matter of degree perfectly innocent = no casual responsibility for any wrong triggering, T, hence no moral responsibility. Moral responsibility may be direct or indirect. |
|
|
K’s view as to the morality of terrorism
|
Terrorism cannot be morally justified under just war theory, and cannot be justified under a theory of basic human rights. Absolutist (wrong)
|
|
|
Walzer:
W’s definition of ‘terrorism’
|
Revolutionary Terrorism: Intentional killing of innocent people too spread fear or force political change.
State Terrorism: used by government on own people to cause fear and make political opposition impossible. War Terrorism: Killing civilians in large numbers that their government is forced to surrender. Common element: intentional targeting of innocent non-combatants (hiroshima) |
|
|
How terrorism is to be explained
|
Cultural - religious - political
the failure to have a stable economy. |
|
|
How terrorism is often defended
|
Excuse #1: it is a weapon of the weak (used as last resort)
Excuse #2: guilt of victims of torture |
|
|
How W thinks we should respond
W’s list of signs of success in the fight against terrorism
|
Attacks (lead to decline)
Morale (deceases among enemy terrorists) Defections / Informants (appear less often) Rallying (our own troops) Silencing (those who are pro-war) Sense of safety (among people) Shaping foreign policy (without care of terrorist response) |
|
|
Sterba:
S’s definition of ‘terrorism’
|
Terrorism: The use or threat of violence on innocent people in order to further a political objective
|
|
|
3 types of pacifism: non-violent, non-lethal, anti-war
|
Non-violent: any form of violence against other human beings is morally wrong
Non-lethal: any lethal force against human beings is morally wrong. Anti-war: any massive use of lethal force is morally wrong |
|
|
Why S rejects the first two types and defends the third
|
Rejects non-violent bc... it recognizes the right to life, yet rules out the use of force to defend that right
Rejects non-lethal bc... Supports Anti-War bc... modern wars tend to produce greater proportions of non-combatant casualties. Strategies to make amends are considered before engaging in war. |
|
|
3 cases in which intentional harm to an innocent person is morally justified
|
Trivial harm (accidentally stepping on someones foot)
Easily repairable harm (lying to a friend to save her from committing suicide) Non repairable harm that are greatly outweighed by the consequences of the action |
|
|
Use of the case of the Spelunkers: 2 versions and the main point Sterba is making with this case
S’s modified discrimination principle
|
In general, it is forbidden to discriminate but there are exceptions to bring about the death of non-combatants.
|
|
|
S’s Just War Pacifism
|
Because of the conditions and requirements of JWT, only rarely will participation in lethal use and warfare ever be morally permissible.
|
|
|
The various historical cases of war/military activity that Sterba discusses and which of those (if any) he thinks can be justified by his JWP, and why.
|
US bombing in Japan in WWII = NO
British counter-city bombing = NO Palestinian suicide bombing = YES 9-11 attacks = NO US War in Afghanistan = NO |
|
|
Shue:
The rationale (justification) of the requirement that combat is more morally defensible is restricted to official combatants
|
Assault upon the defenseless:
Moral principal of warfare - combat is more morally defensible is restricted to official combatants Rational for this principal - The idea of a “fair fight” with the idea that combatants at least had the chance to survive by killing instead of being killed. This is connected directly to the principal of discrimination. |
|
|
Torture as violation of “fair fight”: an assault upon the defenseless
|
once a soldier is defenseless, the he/she can no longer defend him or herself.
Therefore is it no longer a fair fight can killing the defenseless is morally wrong. |
|
|
The possibility of torture within the Constraint of Possible Compliance (CPC)
|
There can be cases where a victim has a way of defense (interrogational torture)- Admitting the knowledge is considered defense.
|
|
|
Provisions of CPC
|
The purpose of the torture must be known or disclosed to the victim
the purpose must be for the victim to perform an action or reveal information that the victim is capable to perform the victim’s performance of the desired action must produce an end in the torture The action must count as a “genuine” escape... better of the lesser of two evils |
|
|
What torture that meets the provisions of CPC might be morally justified
|
nterrogational torture
|
|
|
Two types of torture
|
Terroristic Torture - torturing a single victim in order to get a population / group of people to comply with the torturer’s wants.
Interrogational Torture - extracting information from a victim and only torturing them if they cannot perform accordingly. |
|
|
Three categories of torture victims
|
the ready collaborator
the innocent bystander the dedicated enemy |
|
|
Whether either type of torture can, or is likely to meet the provisions of CPC (and why or why not)
|
In order for the two types the meet the provisions...
the purpose of the torture must be morally good it must be the least harmful means of accomplishing the purpose the purpose of the torture must be clear to the victim |
|
|
Shue’s main worry: the problem of entrenchment
|
If torture is to be continued, it will become political practice and will eventually grow into something uncontrollable
|
|
|
Shue on the ‘ticking bomb terrorist’ case: what he says about its morality and what he says about making torture in such rare cases legal.
|
Keep torture illegal = Absolutist - absolutely not
if torture would be permissible, the slippery slope theory would cause it to be abused. |
|
|
Dershowitz:
Absolutist v. non-absolutist positions on the morality of torture (same for legality)
|
Absolutist - always wrong, no exceptions
Non-absolutist - presumably wrong |
|
|
The slippery slope argument for the conclusion that torture should never be permitted
|
one case of allowing torture will lead to opening the door for other cases of torture
could lead to get out of control and lead to allowing a case that would have originally been morally wrong |
|
|
D’s proposal for responding to this argument
|
Not a conversation stopper, its a worry
|
|
|
The 4 ways to respond to the threat of terrorism that D considers
|
allow torture outside of law
declare that torture is always against the law but turn a blind eye on what goes on beneath the surface revise law to allow torture only so that it operates within the law forgo any use of torture |
|
|
The 3 values to be considered in determining which of these 4 ways is most defensible
|
Safety
Accountability of rights visibility / accountability of law |
|
|
Which of these 4 ways he endorses and why
|
allow torture outside of law
declare that torture is always against the law but turn a blind eye on what goes on beneath the surface revise law to allow torture only so that it operates within the law forgo any use of torture |
|
|
D’s ‘torture warrant’ proposal
|
The torture has to be justified by an official and a warrant has to be presented in order to follow through with the justified torture
|
|
|
Possible advantages of adopting this proposal
|
it would cut back on the instances of torture and would better protect the individuals subject to the torture
|
|
|
Comparison of Shue and Dershowitz over the use of torture in the ticking bomb case
|
Both absolutist on not allowing it
|
|
|
Comparison of Shue and Dershowitz over making torture (in cases like ticking bomb terrorist) legal
|
Shue = it is not legal issue
D = it is a legal issue |
|
|
DDE is intended to address :
|
(a) when it’s permissible to bring about bad effects
|
|
|
Hysterectomy :
|
(d) a foreseen but unintended effect of having the operation
|
|
|
K claims that, from among various just war requirements, moralistic terrorism is most likely to satisfy which of the fllowing of those requirements
|
(d) – just cause
|
