Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART I TERRORISM: WHAT'S IN A NAME?
- PART II WHY MORAL CONDEMNATIONS OF TERRORISM LACK CREDIBILITY
- PART III DEFENDING NONCOMBATANT IMMUNITY
- Introduction: the ethics of war-fighting: a spectrum of possible views
- 8 The realist challenge to the ethics of war
- 9 An ethic of war for reasonable realists
- 10 Walzer on noncombatant immunity as a human right
- 11 The supreme emergency exception
- 12 Rights theories, utilitarianism, and the killing of civilians
- 13 Immunity rights vs. the right of self-defense
- 14 A rule-utilitarian defense of noncombatant immunity
- 15 Why utilitarian criticisms of noncombatant immunity are mistaken
- 16 Is noncombatant immunity a “mere” convention?
- PART IV HOW MUCH IMMUNITY SHOULD NONCOMBATANTS HAVE?
- Conclusion: terrorism and the ethics of war
- Bibliography
- Index
Introduction: the ethics of war-fighting: a spectrum of possible views
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART I TERRORISM: WHAT'S IN A NAME?
- PART II WHY MORAL CONDEMNATIONS OF TERRORISM LACK CREDIBILITY
- PART III DEFENDING NONCOMBATANT IMMUNITY
- Introduction: the ethics of war-fighting: a spectrum of possible views
- 8 The realist challenge to the ethics of war
- 9 An ethic of war for reasonable realists
- 10 Walzer on noncombatant immunity as a human right
- 11 The supreme emergency exception
- 12 Rights theories, utilitarianism, and the killing of civilians
- 13 Immunity rights vs. the right of self-defense
- 14 A rule-utilitarian defense of noncombatant immunity
- 15 Why utilitarian criticisms of noncombatant immunity are mistaken
- 16 Is noncombatant immunity a “mere” convention?
- PART IV HOW MUCH IMMUNITY SHOULD NONCOMBATANTS HAVE?
- Conclusion: terrorism and the ethics of war
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
There are two central questions about the principle of noncombatant immunity. First, should we accept it at all? That is, should we believe that it is wrong to attack civilians? Second, if we do accept it, should we accept it as an absolute principle or as a principle that permits some justifiable exceptions? These questions focus on issues about who or what are permissible targets of attack. These are only some of the many questions that a full ethic of war will answer.
Some people may wonder whether it makes sense to apply ideas about the ethics of war to questions about terrorism. They may think it is not appropriate to apply ethical principles about warfare to violent attacks conducted by non-governmental groups. I have argued in several places (and will continue to do so) for the applicability of ethics of war principles to terrorist actions. One reason for this is that terrorist acts can be carried out by states as well as non-state groups. Another is that there are general problems about the ethics of violence, no matter who carries it out and what their reasons might be. The ethics of war between states is a subset of these broader issues. Nonetheless, when I speak of the ethics of war, I generally assume that the principles that are relevant to war apply to organized violence by governments and non-governmental groups alike, including the groups usually identified as terrorists.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Terrorism and the Ethics of War , pp. 109 - 113Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010