How Many Ways Are There to Think Morally About War?

In both political science and ethics, interpreters of the meaning of war have learned to use typologies to separate one mode of evaluation from another. As a result of this diversity in moral evaluations of war, authors have partly talked past each other, with all good faith accusing each another of...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Yoder, John Howard 1927-1997 (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Publicado: 1994
En: Journal of law and religion
Año: 1994, Volumen: 11, Número: 1, Páginas: 83-107
Acceso en línea: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Descripción
Sumario:In both political science and ethics, interpreters of the meaning of war have learned to use typologies to separate one mode of evaluation from another. As a result of this diversity in moral evaluations of war, authors have partly talked past each other, with all good faith accusing each another of confused categories. There has not been an agreed upon definitional base-line for just war theories "out there," which would permit just war theorists to judge other theories and communicate with each other.I propose to define more carefully the operative terms and kinds of argument used in just war theory, to assist communication on these topics. If we fail to clarify the variety of meanings and arguments, the result is imprecision and confusion. Our need is for a more precise understanding of the diversity of the modes of moral reasoning on just war. By surveying recent developments and usage in the field, this article will make it possible for just war scholars to engage each other using a more adequate, more nuanced set of types. While these types are not identical with current dominant usage, they are reconcilable with its main lines and more useful as instruments of interpretation than the simpler systems.
ISSN:2163-3088
Obras secundarias:Enthalten in: Journal of law and religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.2307/1051625