"That's more than we know": The Principle of Responsibility and the Common Soldier in William Shakespeare's Plays

Franziska Quabeck
{"title":"\"That's more than we know\": The Principle of Responsibility and the Common Soldier in William Shakespeare's Plays","authors":"Franziska Quabeck","doi":"10.14220/jrat.2018.4.1.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers literary texts that foreground the combatants! view. The focus lies on the soldiers! perspective in general and on just war theory!s principle of responsibility in particular. The distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello as discussed by just war theorists allows us to distinguish between different spheres of responsibility and this entails that soldiers may be not responsible for the war as such, only for their conduct. However, this view is contested, as many just war theorists today argue that we ought to make a distinction between just and unjust soldiers. This paper discusses literary texts that seem to counter this view. Two playwrights, William Shakespeare and Gregory Burke, writing war plays for the stage over four hundred years apart, go to great lengths to show their audience the common soldiers! perspective on the justice of the wars they fight in. This paper argues that both playwrights draw a line between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Both Shakespeare andBurke seem to emphasize deliberately that soldiers cannot be held accountable for the injustice of the causes they are obligated to fight for.","PeriodicalId":408080,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society – J-RaT","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society – J-RaT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14220/jrat.2018.4.1.38","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper considers literary texts that foreground the combatants! view. The focus lies on the soldiers! perspective in general and on just war theory!s principle of responsibility in particular. The distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello as discussed by just war theorists allows us to distinguish between different spheres of responsibility and this entails that soldiers may be not responsible for the war as such, only for their conduct. However, this view is contested, as many just war theorists today argue that we ought to make a distinction between just and unjust soldiers. This paper discusses literary texts that seem to counter this view. Two playwrights, William Shakespeare and Gregory Burke, writing war plays for the stage over four hundred years apart, go to great lengths to show their audience the common soldiers! perspective on the justice of the wars they fight in. This paper argues that both playwrights draw a line between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Both Shakespeare andBurke seem to emphasize deliberately that soldiers cannot be held accountable for the injustice of the causes they are obligated to fight for.
“这比我们知道的更多”:威廉·莎士比亚戏剧中的责任原则和普通士兵
本文考虑的文学文本前景的战斗!视图。焦点在士兵身上!一般观点和正义战争理论!特别是责任原则。正义战争理论家所讨论的战时法和战时法之间的区别使我们能够区分不同领域的责任,这意味着士兵可能不需要对战争负责,只需要对他们的行为负责。然而,这种观点是有争议的,因为今天许多正义战争理论家认为,我们应该区分正义和非正义的士兵。本文讨论的文学文本似乎与这一观点相反。两位剧作家,威廉·莎士比亚和格雷戈里·伯克,相隔四百多年为舞台创作战争剧,他们不遗余力地向观众展示普通士兵!对他们参与的战争的正义性的看法。本文认为,两位剧作家都在战时法和战时法之间划清了界限。莎士比亚和伯克似乎都在刻意强调,士兵不能为他们有义务为之战斗的事业的不公正负责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信