Deontology, Consequentialism and Reciprocity in Contemporary Just War Thinking

Chris D. Brown
{"title":"Deontology, Consequentialism and Reciprocity in Contemporary Just War Thinking","authors":"Chris D. Brown","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThere has always been a degree of tension between, on the one hand, the writings of philosophers, theologians and lawyers on the ethics of war, and, on the other, the moral approach of soldiers, those actually engaged in combat. The former base their thinking on deontological reasoning, albeit with occasional reluctant gestures towards notions such as ‘military necessity’, while the latter are by temperament consequentialist, stressing, in particular, the importance of reciprocity. This tension is controllable in the implausible context of war between liberal, Western European countries, but comes to the surface in situations where regular Western armies are in combat with the armed forces of non-liberal states, or in situations of asymmetric warfare. The question is posed – can the notion of a just war survive in the absence of reciprocity?","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There has always been a degree of tension between, on the one hand, the writings of philosophers, theologians and lawyers on the ethics of war, and, on the other, the moral approach of soldiers, those actually engaged in combat. The former base their thinking on deontological reasoning, albeit with occasional reluctant gestures towards notions such as ‘military necessity’, while the latter are by temperament consequentialist, stressing, in particular, the importance of reciprocity. This tension is controllable in the implausible context of war between liberal, Western European countries, but comes to the surface in situations where regular Western armies are in combat with the armed forces of non-liberal states, or in situations of asymmetric warfare. The question is posed – can the notion of a just war survive in the absence of reciprocity?
当代正义战争思想中的义务论、结果主义与互惠主义
一方面,哲学家,神学家和律师关于战争伦理的著作,另一方面,参与战斗的士兵的道德态度,两者之间一直存在一定程度的矛盾。前者的思维基于义务论推理,尽管偶尔会对“军事必要性”等概念做出不情愿的姿态,而后者则是天生的结果主义者,特别强调互惠的重要性。这种紧张关系在自由主义西欧国家之间难以置信的战争背景下是可控的,但在西方正规军与非自由主义国家的武装部队作战或不对称战争的情况下,这种紧张关系就会浮出水面。问题来了——在没有互惠的情况下,正义战争的概念还能存在吗?
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
CiteScore
0.90
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