No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
On one popular conception of how to do political theory, we should start with our considered judgments, try to work them together into a coherent theory, and then test our judgments against the theory, and the theory against the judgments, to see if either needs modification.1 Philosophical discussion of the ethics of war has taken exactly this form: there are certain considered judgments, best enunciated by Michael Walzer, to which many hold. 2 Only combatants may be intentionally targeted in war; unintended harms to noncombatants must be minimized; wars of national defense and humanitarian intervention can be justified.Then there is the theory.Walzer's own loose attempt to synthesize these judgments has been largely discredited.3 In recent years, philosophers from a more austere ethical tradition have argued that these theoretical failings demand reevaluation of the considered Versions of this article have been presented at workshops at Oxford, Keele, and the Association for Legal and Social Philosophy; many thanks to the conveners and participants of those meetings.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 128 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.