Can War Be Justified?: A Debate

Description

Can war be justified? Pacifists answer that it cannot; they oppose war and advocate for nonviolent alternatives to war. But defenders of just war theory argue that in some circumstances, when the effectiveness of nonviolence is limited, wars can be justified. In this book, two philosophers debate this question, drawing on contemporary scholarship and new developments in thinking about pacifism and just war theory. Andrew Fiala defends the pacifist position, while Jennifer Kling defends just war traditions. Fiala argues that pacifism follows from the awful reality of war and the nonviolent goal of building a more just and peaceful world. Kling argues that war is sometimes justified when it is a last-ditch, necessary effort to defend people and their communities from utter destruction and death. Pulling from global traditions and histories, their debate will captivate anyone who has wondered or worried about the morality of political violence and military force. Topics discussed include ethical questions of self-defense and other-defense, the great analogy between individuals and states, evolving technologies and methods of warfighting, moral injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, broader political and communal issues, and the problem of regional security in a globalizing world. The authors consider cultural and religious issues as well as the fundamental question of moral obligation in a world saturated in military conflict. The book was written in the aftermath of the war on terrorism and includes reflection on lessons learned from the past decades of war, as well as hopes for the future in light of emerging threats in Europe and elsewhere. The book is organized in a user-friendly fashion. Each author presents a self-contained argument, which is followed by a series of responses, replies, and counter-arguments. Throughout, the authors model civil discourse by emphasizing points of agreement and remaining areas of disagreement. The book includes reader-friendly summaries, a glossary of key concepts, and suggestions for further study. All of this will help students and scholars follow the authors’ dialogue so they may develop their own answer to the question of whether war can be justified. 　Key Features Summarizes the debate between pacifism and just war theory. Considers historical and traditional sources as well as contemporary scholarship and applications. Models philosophical dialogue and civil discourse, while seeking common ground. Discusses issues of concern in contemporary warfighting and peacemaking, while offering an analysis of the war on terrorism. Cover Half Title Series Page Title Page Copyright Page Contents Land Acknowledgment General Acknowledgments Foreword: Can War Be Justified? Notes Preface The Problem of History and the War in Ukraine Part I: Opening Statements Chapter 1: War Cannot Be Justified 1. The Question of Proof 2. The Complexity of Pacifism 3. Self-Defense and the Domestic Analogy 4. A Controversial Historical Example: World War Two 5. Consequentialist and Deontological Arguments Against War 5.1. The Consequentialist Argument against War: The Harms of War Outweigh the Benefits 5.2. The Deontological Argument against War: The Intrinsic Wrongness of War 6. Other Arguments against War: Autonomy, Democracy, and Pacific Virtue 7. The Pacifist Tradition and the Just War Tradition 7.1. The Pacifist Tradition 7.2. On the Unity of Means and Ends 7.3. Peace and Justice 8. The Argument against Realism and Bellism 8.1. Realism, Moral Slippage, and the World War II Example 8.2. Bellism 9. Might Does Not Make Right 10. Pacifism as Transformative Critical Theory 10.1. Militarism 10.2. Moral Injury and PTSD 10.3. Creative and Active Nonviolence Notes Appendix: The Varieties of Pacifism Chapter 2: War Can Be Justified 1. Contemporary Just War Theory 1.1. Jus Ad Bellum 1.2. Jus In Bello 1.3. Jus Post Bellum 1.4. The Goal of JWT 1.5. Moral Underpinnings of JWT 2. Three Standard Arguments for Just War 2.1. Self-Defense against External Unjustified Threats or Aggressive Actions: Repelling or Blocking Outside Invasion or Attack 2.1.1. Political Sovereignty 2.1.2. Territorial Integrity 2.1.3. Defensive and Pre-Emptive War 2.2. Self-Defense against Internal Unjustified Threats or Aggressive Actions: Emancipatory or Liberatory Revolutionary Struggle 2.3. Other-Defense (against External or Internal Unjustified Threats or Aggressive Actions): Humanitarian Intervention 3. The Real World, and Force Short of War 3.1. The "Optimism" of JWT 3.2. The Means-Ends Problem, and Force Short of War 3.3. Emerging Military Technologies and the Nature of War 4. Those Who Would Have Peace, Must Prepare for War (and Its Aftermath) 4.1. War Is a Stopgap 5. The Transformation of Just War Theory 5.1. Bellism, Toxic Masculinity, and Just War Theory 5.2. Collateral Damage 5.3. Oppression and Global Politics Note Part II: Round of Replies Chapter 3: Response to Kling 1. On Fighting Back 2. The Logic of Pacifism's Rejection of Just War 3. Empirical and Historical Questions 4. The Problem of Ideology and Propaganda 5. Individual and Political Pacifism 6. Legitimacy, Autonomy, Cosmopolitanism, and Positive Peace 7. A Continuum of Nonviolence and Violence 8. Preventative Nonviolence Chapter 4: Response to Fiala 1. Weighing Consequences, Side Effects, and the Problem of the Future 2. The Perils of Reasoning from Religious Traditions 3. Reconsidering a Unity of Means and Ends 4. Justice and Injustice in the Real World Notes Part III: Concluding Arguments Chapter 5: Summary of the Argument Against War and Conclusion Chapter 6: Summary in Defense of Just War Theory and Conclusion 1. Choosing Where to Stand 2. The Seductive Power of Violence 3. The Past and the Future Further Reading Arguments Against War Arguments in Defense of War Historical Sources Philosophical and Historical Anthologies Glossary Bibliography Index