Defeating Ignorance – Ius ad Bellum Heuristics for Modern Professional Soldiers

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Diametros Pub Date : 2019-07-19 DOI:10.33392/DIAM.1219
M. Zając
{"title":"Defeating Ignorance – Ius ad Bellum Heuristics for Modern Professional Soldiers","authors":"M. Zając","doi":"10.33392/DIAM.1219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Just War Theory debates discussing the principle of the Moral Equality of Combatants (MEC) involve the notion of Invincible Ignorance; the claim that warfi ghters are morally excused for participating in an unjust war because of their epistemic limitations. Conditions of military deployment may indeed lead to genuinely insurmountable epistemic limitations. In other cases, these may be overcome. This paper provides a preliminary sketch of heuristics designed to allow a combatant to judge whether or not his war is just. It delineates the sets of relevant facts uncontroversially accessible and inaccessible to contemporary professional soldiers. Relevant facts outside these two sets should by default be treated as inaccessible until proven otherwise. Even such a rudimentary heuristic created in this way demonstrates that practical recommendations of MEC-renouncing Just War Theory are not too challenging to follow and still signifi cantly impact a compliant combatant’s behavior.","PeriodicalId":42290,"journal":{"name":"Diametros","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diametros","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33392/DIAM.1219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Just War Theory debates discussing the principle of the Moral Equality of Combatants (MEC) involve the notion of Invincible Ignorance; the claim that warfi ghters are morally excused for participating in an unjust war because of their epistemic limitations. Conditions of military deployment may indeed lead to genuinely insurmountable epistemic limitations. In other cases, these may be overcome. This paper provides a preliminary sketch of heuristics designed to allow a combatant to judge whether or not his war is just. It delineates the sets of relevant facts uncontroversially accessible and inaccessible to contemporary professional soldiers. Relevant facts outside these two sets should by default be treated as inaccessible until proven otherwise. Even such a rudimentary heuristic created in this way demonstrates that practical recommendations of MEC-renouncing Just War Theory are not too challenging to follow and still signifi cantly impact a compliant combatant’s behavior.
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
战胜无知——现代职业士兵的启示
正义战争理论中关于战斗人员道德平等原则的争论涉及到不可战胜的无知概念;由于认识上的局限性,战士参与不公正战争在道德上是可以原谅的。军事部署的条件确实可能导致真正无法克服的认识局限。在其他情况下,这些可能会被克服。本文提供了启发式的初步草图,旨在让战斗人员判断他的战争是否公正。它描绘了当代职业士兵无法获得和无法获得的一系列无争议的相关事实。默认情况下,这两个集合之外的相关事实应被视为不可访问,除非另有证明。即使是这样一种基本的启发式方法,也表明MEC放弃正义战争理论的实际建议并不具有太大的挑战性,并且仍然会对顺从的战斗人员的行为产生重大影响。
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
Diametros
Diametros PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
I Act Therefore I Live? Autopoiesis, Sensorimotor Autonomy, and Extended Agency Research ethics in a multilingual world: A guide to reflecting on language decisions in all disciplines Expertise and Expert Authority Ethical challenges in contemporary social research (editorial) Beyond the participant-researcher division: co-creating ethical relationships through care and rapport in studies of post-laryngectomy communication
×
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