PHI specific language

Thomson: In cases where killing is morally permissible….

you don’t need an excuse because it is not wrong to kill them and killing them is justified

Thomson: proportionality condition

harm inflicted should be proportional

Thomson: necessity condition

no other way to save one’s lifeT

Thomson’s rejection of only proportionality and necessity

Starvation of baby.

Thomson’s account of permissible killing in self-defense

if people will violate your right not to be killed unless you kill them, then they lose their ordinary right not to be killed, so killing them is permissible

Thomson: Innocent agressor

even if not villainously aggressing against you, if they are still aggressing against you

villian injected someone with drug and made them go crazy

Thomson: Innocent Threat

still violates your right not to be killed unless you kill them

fat man falling will kill you unless you move ur awning, killing him

Thomson: 3 types of bystander

use of a bystander, substitution of a bystander, ridingroughshod-over-a bystander

Substitution-of-a-bystander

Redirecting harm onto an innocent person is not allowed. “the only path onto which you can deflect it will take it onto a bystander”

Use-of-a-bystander

Using a person as a tool to save yourself is not allowed. “the only way you have of defending yourself is to shoot a bystander… which will thereby stop the trolley [but kill him]”

Riding-roughshod-over-a-bystander

Hurting someone just to escape is not allowed. “your only path to safety lies across a bridge… he will be toppled off into the valley below”

Thomson: response to bystander cases

bystander is not going to violate your right not to be killed. they retain their right

Thomson: fighting back against permissible self defense

You retain your right not to be killed, so it would be wrong for aggressor to kill you in self defense

Thomson: other-defense

third parties can also kill the agresssor to save the victim

McMahan: 3 accounts of self-defense distingusished. Which does he defend

rights-based account, the culpability account, and the responsibility account

McMahan defends the responsibilty account

McMahan objection to right-based account

Tactical bomber case where a morally justified bomber will kill civilians as a side effect

rights-based account rejected because it seems that the civilians should be allowed to defend themselves

McMahan: Infringing vs Violating right

Infringing: when one permissibly does what another has a right that one not do

Violating: When one impermissibly does what another has a right that one not do

You should lose rights for violating, but not infringing bc it is morally justified

McMahan: Culpability account

person is liable to defensive harm only if they are morally at fault for causing an unjustified threat (he objects)

McMahan: Culpable attempter case

2 villians plan to kill you, and you can save yourself only by shooting the first, causing him to slump, therby blocking the second villion’s line of fire

McMahan’s objection to Culpability account

Conscious driver and Resident- shows people who are not morally at fault can still pose threats, which shows that the culpability alone does not fully explain when self-defense is allowed

McMahan: responsibilty account, application to driver and resident?

person may be harmed in self defense if they are morally responsible for un unjustified threat, even if they are not at fault

self defense against driver is permissible but not resident

McMahan on responsibilty account and innocent agreesors and threats

may not be permissibly killed if they are not morally responsible for the threat they pose

Just war theory

war can be justified under certain conditions

pacifism

war is never justified

realism

morality doesnt apply to war

how is war often compared to self defense

just like a person can defend themselves, a country may defend itself against attack

jus ad bellum

a war being just

most important conditions of jus ad bellum

just cause, proportionality, and last resort

just in bello

just conduct in war. Evenif a ar is just, te way it is fought must follow moral rules

traditional view of attacking non-combatants or inactive combatants

it is always wrong to intentionally attack. Only active combatants are legitimate tagets for intentional attack

double effect

it can be permissible to harm civilians if the harm is not intended/side effect and meets conditions of proportionality and neciessity

issue when it comes to war and what traditional theory says

is it morally wrong to fight in an unjust war if on unjust side?

Traditional theory says soilders are not morally wrong for fighting in unjust wars as long as they follow jus in bello; blame falls on leaders

McMahans war argument

bc unjust war involves killing/ciontributing to death of innocent people, and killingg innocent ppl is wrong, therefore fighting in an unjust war is morally wrong

McMahan: boxing mach and response

-solders consent to risk like boxers

-McMahan argues that combatants do not clearly consent…even so consent doesn’t justify killing especially since innocent people are also harmed

McMahan: Institutional commitment and response

soldiers should just follow orders because the military system works better when individuals don’t question

prison guard can trust the court system, but soldier cannot reasonably trust the political system to determine whether a war is just or unjust, they are responsible and therefore responsible for fighting in unjust wars

also suggets not fighting is not as harmful as fighting in unjust wars

conscious refusal could encourage beneficial public debate

McMahan: Epistemological argument and response

not wrong bc reasonable to believe war is just based on information and their government’s judgement

still sometimes responsible bc they should critically evaluate especially given the high stakes

non-combantant immunity

in traditional war theory, only combatants can be targeted, civilians should not be intentionally attacked. Civilians= innocent, soldiers=not

Mavrode objection to non-combatant immunity

counterexample: innocent combatant and guilty combatant

the idea that all civilians are innocent and all soldiers are guilty is false

threat idea

combatants can be targeted bc they pose a threat, but fails bc civilians also pose threat

Mavrodes conclusion

noncombatant immunity is not a basic moral truth bc there is nothing inherently wrong with targeting civilians if they are guilty and doing so helps the war

However, how does Mavrodes say non-combatant immunity can be justified

as a convention to reduce harm in war, to benefit all sides, when everyone follows it

Mavrodes analogy of single combat instead of war

would produce the same result as war, but with less destruction.

driving on the right side as a convention- safer for everyone

Noncombatant immunity is a step in this direction. Every country would benefit. BUT if other countries ignore the rule, then it may no longer be wrong to target civillians