比例:索姆河的教训

Nigel Biggar
{"title":"比例:索姆河的教训","authors":"Nigel Biggar","doi":"10.5325/SOUNDINGS.101.3.0193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In “just war” thinking, proportionality is a criterion both of going to war and of fighting in it. This article uses the Battle of the Somme—a byword for immorally profligate warfare—to consider how proportionality should be understood. It reaches six conclusions: (1) a very large number of casualties is not in itself disproportionate; (2) the proportionality of a particular military operation depends on the moral standing of the larger belligerency to which it belongs; (3) aptness in the sense of being a fit response to injustice requires an account of what kinds of injustice warrant the costs of war; (4) strategy or tactics that are inefficient in the spending of lives are disproportionate; (5) if a strategist or tactician could have known that his plans were inefficient, and if we judge that he should have known, then the disproportion is culpable; nevertheless, (6) attrition can be the most efficient way of fighting.","PeriodicalId":231294,"journal":{"name":"Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":"126 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proportionality: Lessons from the Somme\",\"authors\":\"Nigel Biggar\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/SOUNDINGS.101.3.0193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In “just war” thinking, proportionality is a criterion both of going to war and of fighting in it. This article uses the Battle of the Somme—a byword for immorally profligate warfare—to consider how proportionality should be understood. It reaches six conclusions: (1) a very large number of casualties is not in itself disproportionate; (2) the proportionality of a particular military operation depends on the moral standing of the larger belligerency to which it belongs; (3) aptness in the sense of being a fit response to injustice requires an account of what kinds of injustice warrant the costs of war; (4) strategy or tactics that are inefficient in the spending of lives are disproportionate; (5) if a strategist or tactician could have known that his plans were inefficient, and if we judge that he should have known, then the disproportion is culpable; nevertheless, (6) attrition can be the most efficient way of fighting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":231294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\"126 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/SOUNDINGS.101.3.0193\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/SOUNDINGS.101.3.0193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:在“正义战争”思想中,比例既是参战的标准,也是参战的标准。本文以索姆河战役为例——这是不道德的挥霍战争的代名词——来考虑如何理解相称性。它得出了六个结论:(1)大量伤亡本身并不是不成比例的;(2)某一特定军事行动的相称性取决于它所属的更大的交战国的道德地位;(3)在对不公正作出适当反应的意义上,恰当需要对什么样的不公正值得付出战争代价的解释;(4)在生命消耗方面效率低下的战略或战术不成比例;(5)如果一个战略家或战术家可以知道他的计划是无效的,如果我们判断他应该知道,那么比例失调是有罪的;然而,消耗可能是最有效的战斗方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Proportionality: Lessons from the Somme
Abstract:In “just war” thinking, proportionality is a criterion both of going to war and of fighting in it. This article uses the Battle of the Somme—a byword for immorally profligate warfare—to consider how proportionality should be understood. It reaches six conclusions: (1) a very large number of casualties is not in itself disproportionate; (2) the proportionality of a particular military operation depends on the moral standing of the larger belligerency to which it belongs; (3) aptness in the sense of being a fit response to injustice requires an account of what kinds of injustice warrant the costs of war; (4) strategy or tactics that are inefficient in the spending of lives are disproportionate; (5) if a strategist or tactician could have known that his plans were inefficient, and if we judge that he should have known, then the disproportion is culpable; nevertheless, (6) attrition can be the most efficient way of fighting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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