Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys.

Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel) Pub Date : 2009-01-01 Epub Date: 2008-07-26 DOI:10.1007/s11406-008-9145-5
Per Sandin
{"title":"Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys.","authors":"Per Sandin","doi":"10.1007/s11406-008-9145-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper discusses the application of the supreme emergency doctrine from just-war theory to non-antagonistic threats. Two versions of the doctrine are considered: Michael Walzer's communitarian version and Brian Orend's prudential one. I investigate first whether the doctrines are applicable to non-antagonistic threats, and second whether they are defensible. I argue that a version of Walzer's doctrine seems to be applicable to non-antagonistic threats, but that it is very doubtful whether the doctrine is defensible. I also argue that Orend's version of the doctrine is applicable to non-antagonistic threats, but that his account is not defensible, regardless of whether the threats are antagonistic or not.</p>","PeriodicalId":74436,"journal":{"name":"Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel)","volume":"37 1","pages":"153-167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11406-008-9145-5","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9145-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2008/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

This paper discusses the application of the supreme emergency doctrine from just-war theory to non-antagonistic threats. Two versions of the doctrine are considered: Michael Walzer's communitarian version and Brian Orend's prudential one. I investigate first whether the doctrines are applicable to non-antagonistic threats, and second whether they are defensible. I argue that a version of Walzer's doctrine seems to be applicable to non-antagonistic threats, but that it is very doubtful whether the doctrine is defensible. I also argue that Orend's version of the doctrine is applicable to non-antagonistic threats, but that his account is not defensible, regardless of whether the threats are antagonistic or not.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
没有坏人的超级紧急事件。
本文从正义战争理论出发,探讨了最高紧急状态原则在非对抗性威胁中的应用。该学说有两个版本:Michael Walzer的社群主义版本和Brian Orend的审慎主义版本。我首先研究这些理论是否适用于非对抗性威胁,其次研究它们是否站得住脚。我认为,沃尔泽理论的一个版本似乎适用于非对抗性威胁,但该理论是否站得住是非常值得怀疑的。我还认为,奥伦德的理论版本适用于非对抗性威胁,但无论威胁是否对抗性,他的解释都是站不住脚的。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
How AI Systems Can Be Blameworthy. W. Matthews Grant's Dual Sources Account and Ultimate Responsibility. Taxation in the COVID-19 Pandemic: to Pay or Not to Pay. The Value of Knowledge and Other Epistemic Standings: A Case for Epistemic Pluralism. The Conditional Analysis of the Agentive Modals: a Reply to Mandelkern et al.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1