Impure Agency and the Just War
Feminist critiques of intention challenge some aspects of traditional just war reasoning, including the criteria of right intention and discrimination (particularly as interpreted using the doctrine of double effect). I take note of these challenges and propose some directions just war reasoners mig...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2015]
|
| Dans: |
Journal of religious ethics
Année: 2015, Volume: 43, Numéro: 2, Pages: 317-341 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
impure agency
B Feminism B right intention B double effect B Just War |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | Feminist critiques of intention challenge some aspects of traditional just war reasoning, including the criteria of right intention and discrimination (particularly as interpreted using the doctrine of double effect). I take note of these challenges and propose some directions just war reasoners might take in response. First, right intention can be evaluated more accurately by judging what actors in war actually do than by attempting to uncover inward dispositions. Assessing whether agents in war have taken due care to minimize foreseeable collateral damage, avoided intentional targeting of noncombatants, corrected previous mistakes in their later actions, and taken responsibility to repair unintended damage they cause are examples of ways in which just war reasoners can evaluate intention by looking at actions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9795 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of religious ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/jore.12099 |