File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s42048-020-00062-8
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: The indispensable mental element of justification and the failure of purely objectivist (mostly “revisionist”) just war theories
Title | The indispensable mental element of justification and the failure of purely objectivist (mostly “revisionist”) just war theories |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Just war theory Knowledge requirement Mixed account Moral equality of combatants Objective justification |
Issue Date | 2020 |
Publisher | J.B. Metzler. The Journal's web site is located at https://www.springer.com/philosophy/ethics+and+moral+philosophy/journal/42048 |
Citation | Zeitschrift fuer Ethik und Moralphilosophie, 2020, v. 3, p. 51-67 How to Cite? |
Abstract | The “right intention” requirement, in the form of a requirement that the agent must have a justified true belief that the mind-independent conditions of the justification to use force are fulfilled, is not an additional criterion, but one that constrains the interpretation of the other criteria. Without it, the only possible interpretation of the mind-independent criteria is purely objectivist, that is, purely fact-relative. Pure objectivism condemns self-defense and just war theory to irrelevance since it cannot provide proper action guidance: it is impractically demanding. This means that “revisionist” just war theories which base their doctrine of the moral inequality of combatants on the idea that objective justification defeats liability are irrelevant for the real world, where objective justification is virtually inaccessible. Moreover, only the right intention requirement in the form of a knowledge requirement, as opposed to requiring “good intentions” or “acceptable motivations,” can solve this problem. |
Description | Hybrid open access |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/294132 |
ISSN |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Steinhoff, UB | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-11-23T08:26:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-11-23T08:26:46Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Zeitschrift fuer Ethik und Moralphilosophie, 2020, v. 3, p. 51-67 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2522-0063 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/294132 | - |
dc.description | Hybrid open access | - |
dc.description.abstract | The “right intention” requirement, in the form of a requirement that the agent must have a justified true belief that the mind-independent conditions of the justification to use force are fulfilled, is not an additional criterion, but one that constrains the interpretation of the other criteria. Without it, the only possible interpretation of the mind-independent criteria is purely objectivist, that is, purely fact-relative. Pure objectivism condemns self-defense and just war theory to irrelevance since it cannot provide proper action guidance: it is impractically demanding. This means that “revisionist” just war theories which base their doctrine of the moral inequality of combatants on the idea that objective justification defeats liability are irrelevant for the real world, where objective justification is virtually inaccessible. Moreover, only the right intention requirement in the form of a knowledge requirement, as opposed to requiring “good intentions” or “acceptable motivations,” can solve this problem. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | J.B. Metzler. The Journal's web site is located at https://www.springer.com/philosophy/ethics+and+moral+philosophy/journal/42048 | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Zeitschrift fuer Ethik und Moralphilosophie | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Just war theory | - |
dc.subject | Knowledge requirement | - |
dc.subject | Mixed account | - |
dc.subject | Moral equality of combatants | - |
dc.subject | Objective justification | - |
dc.title | The indispensable mental element of justification and the failure of purely objectivist (mostly “revisionist”) just war theories | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Steinhoff, UB: ustnhoff@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Steinhoff, UB=rp00610 | - |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s42048-020-00062-8 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 318891 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 3 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 51 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 67 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Germany | - |