File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s11406-023-00673-6
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85166531735
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Reply to Critics
Title | Reply to Critics |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Conventions Just War Theory Legitimate Authority Necessity Reciprocity Rights Forfeiture |
Issue Date | 2-Aug-2023 |
Publisher | Springer |
Citation | Philosophia, 2023, v. 51, p. 2357-2377 How to Cite? |
Abstract | This article provides a response to the contributors of this symposium. Notably, I respond to the following objections: that my list of just war criteria is too long on an “ideal” level and too short for practical purposes; that in particular my rejection of legitimate authority is misguided; that I am wrong in claiming that in just war theory the conditions of proportionality and necessity, which are separate in the self-defense justification, must be merged; that my “social practice view” – which denies the existence of an “immutable”, “deep” morality of war and holds instead that widely accepted conventions have moral force and are therefore partly constitutive of the morality of war – faces severe challenges and makes too much of standing to complain and considerations of reciprocity; and that my account of rights forfeiture is mistaken. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/338758 |
ISSN | 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.301 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Steinhoff, Uwe | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-11T10:31:18Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-11T10:31:18Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023-08-02 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Philosophia, 2023, v. 51, p. 2357-2377 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0048-3893 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/338758 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <p>This article provides a response to the contributors of this symposium. Notably, I respond to the following objections: that my list of just war criteria is too long on an “ideal” level and too short for practical purposes; that in particular my rejection of legitimate authority is misguided; that I am wrong in claiming that in just war theory the conditions of proportionality and necessity, which are separate in the self-defense justification, must be merged; that my “social practice view” – which denies the existence of an “immutable”, “deep” morality of war and holds instead that widely accepted conventions have moral force and are therefore partly constitutive of the morality of war – faces severe challenges and makes too much of standing to complain and considerations of reciprocity; and that my account of rights forfeiture is mistaken.<br></p> | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Springer | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Philosophia | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Conventions | - |
dc.subject | Just War Theory | - |
dc.subject | Legitimate Authority | - |
dc.subject | Necessity | - |
dc.subject | Reciprocity | - |
dc.subject | Rights Forfeiture | - |
dc.title | Reply to Critics | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s11406-023-00673-6 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85166531735 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 51 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 2357 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 2377 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1574-9274 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0048-3893 | - |