{"title":"简介:军队真的值得拥有吗?","authors":"Péter Bálint","doi":"10.1017/S0892679421000368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Just war theory has traditionally focused on jus ad bellum (the justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war). What has been neglected is the question of jus ante bellum, or justice before war. In particular: Under what circumstances is it justifiable for a polity to prepare for war by militarizing? When (if ever) and why (if at all) is it morally permissible or even obligatory to create and maintain the potential to wage war? What are the alternatives to the military? And if we do have militaries, how should they be arranged, trained, and equipped? These considerations are not about whether war making is justified, but about whether war building is justified. In Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos argues that we have not sufficiently calculated the true (noneconomic) costs of the military, and that if we did, having a standing defense force would not seem like as good an idea. Dobos pushes us to reflect on something we have taken for granted: that one of the biggest institutions in our society, which is supposed to keep us safe and allow us to lead our own lives, may in fact pose great dangers and risks to us physically, morally, and culturally. The essays in this symposium take Dobos's work as a starting point and show the importance, complexity, and richness of this new strand of ethical inquiry.","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"42 1","pages":"343 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction: Is a Military Really Worth Having?\",\"authors\":\"Péter Bálint\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0892679421000368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Just war theory has traditionally focused on jus ad bellum (the justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war). What has been neglected is the question of jus ante bellum, or justice before war. In particular: Under what circumstances is it justifiable for a polity to prepare for war by militarizing? When (if ever) and why (if at all) is it morally permissible or even obligatory to create and maintain the potential to wage war? What are the alternatives to the military? And if we do have militaries, how should they be arranged, trained, and equipped? These considerations are not about whether war making is justified, but about whether war building is justified. In Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos argues that we have not sufficiently calculated the true (noneconomic) costs of the military, and that if we did, having a standing defense force would not seem like as good an idea. Dobos pushes us to reflect on something we have taken for granted: that one of the biggest institutions in our society, which is supposed to keep us safe and allow us to lead our own lives, may in fact pose great dangers and risks to us physically, morally, and culturally. The essays in this symposium take Dobos's work as a starting point and show the importance, complexity, and richness of this new strand of ethical inquiry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & International Affairs\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"343 - 352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & International Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679421000368\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679421000368","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
传统的正义战争理论主要关注战争正义(jus ad bellum)和战争正义(jus in bello)。被忽视的是战争前的正义问题。特别是:在什么情况下,一个政体通过军事化来准备战争是合理的?什么时候(如果有的话)和为什么(如果有的话)在道德上允许甚至是必须创造和维持发动战争的可能性?除了参军还有什么选择?如果我们真的有军队,他们应该如何安排、训练和装备?这些考虑不是关于战争是否合理,而是关于战争建设是否合理。在《伦理、安全和战争机器》一书中,Ned Dobos认为,我们没有充分计算出军事的真实(非经济)成本,如果我们这样做了,那么拥有一支常备防御力量似乎就不是个好主意。Dobos促使我们反思一些我们认为理所当然的事情:我们社会中最大的机构之一,本应保护我们的安全,允许我们过自己的生活,但实际上可能在身体上、道德上和文化上给我们带来巨大的危险和风险。本次研讨会的论文以Dobos的工作为起点,展示了这一新的伦理探究的重要性、复杂性和丰富性。
Abstract Just war theory has traditionally focused on jus ad bellum (the justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war). What has been neglected is the question of jus ante bellum, or justice before war. In particular: Under what circumstances is it justifiable for a polity to prepare for war by militarizing? When (if ever) and why (if at all) is it morally permissible or even obligatory to create and maintain the potential to wage war? What are the alternatives to the military? And if we do have militaries, how should they be arranged, trained, and equipped? These considerations are not about whether war making is justified, but about whether war building is justified. In Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos argues that we have not sufficiently calculated the true (noneconomic) costs of the military, and that if we did, having a standing defense force would not seem like as good an idea. Dobos pushes us to reflect on something we have taken for granted: that one of the biggest institutions in our society, which is supposed to keep us safe and allow us to lead our own lives, may in fact pose great dangers and risks to us physically, morally, and culturally. The essays in this symposium take Dobos's work as a starting point and show the importance, complexity, and richness of this new strand of ethical inquiry.