Rest of Problem of War

Defense Tribunal 3

1.5 million deaths Soviet Union prolonged siege Soviet didn't evacuate well (forced some to stay to fight germans) No many noncombatants (fighting germans) Societies treating civilians immorally Soviets forcing civilians to train (governments forced civilians to lose non-combatant status) Need to break some ideas of war convention to uphold other ideas of war convention

Is this similar to Walzer's discussion of rights as a way past utilitarian thinking on the war convention?

Acknowledging that everyone has them and increases importance of moral code (stronger outside reactions to your actions)

Thoreau Notes

Civil disobedience Government is best when it governs the least (or not at all) Standing army is only an arm of the standing government American government is a tradition of transmitting itself unimpaired to posterity but in each instant losing some of its integrity (doesn't have vitality and force of a single man because a single man can bend it to its will) Governments show how successfully men can be imposed upon (doesn't keep the country free and/or educated) Government is an expedient (a means of attaining an end, especially one that is convenient but considered improper or immoral) Not asking for no government but for a better one (be men first then subjects after) Corporation doesn't have a conscience but a corporation on conscientious men has a conscience Are soldiers just pawns in the government's war? (men serve as machines not bodies, in most cases no free exercise of judgement or of the moral sense) Some serve state with their heads (politicians, lawyers, rarely make moral decisions) He who gives himself entirely to his fellow men appears to them selfish and useless but one who gives himself fully is seen as a benefactor and philanthropist One can't not be disgraced when in relation to today's American government All machines have their friction It is ok to rebel if 1/6 population is slaves and if a country is overtaken by a foreign power (under military law) Paley: if no-one can do anything then it is ok Even postponing discussion of freedom is committing crime against humans Easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it Voting is a game of right and wrong Population is too large It is not man's duty to devote himself to eradication of any wrong (he can be concerned but should wash his hands of it) Performance of right separates individuals as well as governments and societies Unjust laws exist (fault of the government, remedy is worse than the evil) If injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine then let it go Break the law if it forces you to act unjustly The very constitution is the evil Enough for abolitionists if god is on their side Under a government that imprisons unjustly then the true place for a just man is also a prison Imprisoning the offender and seizing his goods would serve the same purpose More money leads to less virtue because money gets in between a man and his objets and obtains them for him Best thing a man can do when he is rich is to try to carry out the schemes he has when he was poor Can't spare the protection of the existing government (makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, taxes) Confucius: if a state is governed by reason then poverty and misery are subject to shame but if it is not then riches and honors are subject to shame Don't want to be regarded as a part of a society that they did not join Being put in jail, they couldn't reach him, the state was half-witted (didn't pay tax to refuse allegiance to the state) State never intentionally confront a man's sense, intellect, or moral, but rather his body and senses (I was not born to be forced, not the son of the engineer) People mean well but are ignorant (quietly submit to thousands of necessities) If I put my head in the fire there is no appeal to the fire or the maker of the fire only myself to blame I should endeavor to be satisfied with how things really are We must treat our country as our parents Lawyers quality is prudence No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America I will cheerfully those who know and can do better than I Perfect state imagined but not yet seen All men recognize the right of revolution (almost all say that such is not the case now) Minority controls democracy (rich white males) State power is always greater (when should one resist) Mad at Polk (greedy for power, western expansion, manifest destiny, government overstepping its bounds) Against slavery (everyone not actively opposing it endorses it) Expedient government (getting things done quickly) Want limited government (everyone has the right to consent to be governed, active consent, active democratic involvement/ancient Athens democracy) Silence is agreeing with majoirty Damage done by not paying taxes is fault of the government (limited to necessities of upholding democratic government) Pays highway tax to be a good neighbor Mad at who pays his bail (voice taken away) Leaves to cabin in Walden (fearless) Stance on war: no faith in government, understanding war can be unjust, against offensive war (defensive may be ok)

When can a 'supreme emergency' argument be justifiably offered?

Criteria of supreme emergency: imminence of the danger and its nature (both must be applied) Regions of desperation and disaster constitute rely of necessity

What alternatives do you think they could have pursued?

Governmental collaboration (peace treaties perhaps) Third parties maybe

Walzer Chapter 11

Guerrilla War

Does this view of morality differ from what Walzer argues when defending the importance of winning?

He thinks that not winning has some costs to human values Some moral reasons to prolong a war

Nonideal theory: Noncompliance

How ideal is met in gradual steps (looks for policies that are effective and moral in different situations) Noncompliance: situations where certain regimes refuse to acknowledge a reasonable law of peoples Unfavorable conditions: conditions of peoples whose historical, social, and economic circumstances make their achieving a well ordered regime, whether liberal or hierarchal, difficult if not impossible Kant's state of nature Defense of well ordered peoples is first and most urgent task

Under what conditions are 'targeted killings' justified? Do you agree? Why or why not?

Individual poses an imminent threat, capture is not feasible, and the operation were executed in observance of the applicable laws of war Deciding if the target is a significant threat to U.S. interests, being cognizant of state sovereignty issues, having high confidence in the target's identity and that innocent civilians will not be harmed, and, finally, engaging in an additional review process if the individual is a U.S. citizen

Morganthau

International politics, like all politics are a struggle for power (despite intimate aims) Not every action that a nation preforms with respect to another nature is of political nature Not all nations are at all times to the same extent involved in international politics (changes with time) Power is man's control over the minds and actions of other men Political power is a psychological reaction between those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised Impact of power used: expectation of benefits, fear of disadvantages, and the respect or love for men and institutions Cobden and Proudhon: removal of trade barriers is the only condition for establishing permanent harmony among nations (might lead to disappearance of international politics altogether) Marx: capitalism is root of international discord and war Biological drives of society: desire to live Ostrogorsky: passions of American people are not political but commercial People have the tendency to dominate Dead Sea scrolls: no nations wants to be oppressed by a stronger power but what nation hasn't done that themselves Principles of political realism: Politics like society in general is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature (realism is ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason, approach politics with reason) Main signpost that helps political realism find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power (link between reason trying to understand international politics and the facts to be understood, guard against fallacies of concern of motives and ideological preferences, motives most illusive of psychological data, common mental phenomena: residues of formally adequate modes of thought and action now rendered obsolete by a new social reality, demonological interpretations of reality which substitutes a fictitious reality for an actual one, refusal to come to terms with a threatening state of affairs by denying it through illusory verbalization, and reliance upon the infinite malleability of a seemingly obstreperous reality, it is characteristic of primitive thinking to personalize social problems, superstitions hold way over our relations with society and shift concern from the real threat of powers of states to communism, painted picture shows human essence of person portrayed) Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but doesn't endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all (Thuycidides: only bond of union that endures among nations is the absence of all clashing interests, Weber: interest not ideals dominate directly the actions of men) Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action and tension between moral command and requirements of successful political action (realism considers prudence to be the supreme virtue in politics) Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe The difference between political realism and other schools of thought is real and profound (theory of politics won't reach unanimous approval)

What is 'double effect'?

Knowing that a soldier in firing at the enemy forces that he will shoot some civilians that are nearby

What would you have done if you had been Ali La Pointe?

Leader of NLF: terrorism is a great way to start but to finish you need the people (strike), easy to start a resistance, hard to sustain it and even harder to win it I would have tried to form the larger protests like at the end to catch the attention of outside forces

Notes 1/14/19

Morgenthau discussion: Thesis: politics is a struggle for power Support: countries compete to gain more power in the international system, struggle for power is universal in time and space, whole political life of a nation part of a democratic nation from local t national level is a continuous struggle for power, lens of power makes politics more understandable Three writers: Hobbes (war is innate, tool of last resort, no leviathan would need to be all powerful), Machiavelli (do whatever you need to stay in power), and Kant: against him, prudence/power first morality second, political moralist is struggle for power at every level of society) Morgenthau and Niebuhr don't attempt to form a just war doctrine Moregnthau notes: Germany 1904 (Kolberg) Consequence of wars (end of WWI) German Jew First anti-Semitic: smashing of graves Schooled by Kant Leaves Germany to Spain (civil war, facist Franco in 30s) then to US (Kansas, teaches, then to U of Chicago) Writes on power (WWII) Uses war least, lose a war you're done (tool of last resort) Can't have leviathan (leviathans fight, different states) Power is downfall of a state (use sparingly) Asked to explain Vietnam War as a necessity (he says no to Johnson), can't defend dumb war, US has much more power (Johnson makes project Morgenthau to smash hornets nest, discredit philosophers against Vietnam War) Niebuhr notes: Thesis: overtime christianity has shifted to adopt utopian ideal which has led to misinterpretation of scripture (reading same things but interpret differently) Points: sin and denial of sin (sin is innate to humans, impossible to deny, blind, prefer tyranny over anarchy, anxious), heresy of pacifism, christian perfectionism (perfect trust in god), nonviolent resistance, "law of love" Writers: Augustine (desire for peace), Matthew (what pacifism really is), Aquinas (going through Augustine's argument) Most important Lutheran theologian (philosopher, but didn't like that) Protested Vietnam War Kant isn't a just war theorist Philosophical whiplash Walzer Chapter 7: Goal of war is to end war and future wars (or have these aims, end war where it is and prevent it happening again, constant in means) No continued fighting Prevention and punishment shouldn't be dealt in the same way Create better state of peace Surrenders should be conditional (prevent future wars) Don't end a war too early Revise legalist paradigm (no domestic police force in international politics) End specific wars

Walzer Chapter 9

Noncombatant immunity and military necessity

How does a 'constructivist procedure' operate according to Rawls?

Seeing justice and fairness, universal Constructivism doesn't view variation in numbers of people alone as accounting for the appropriateness of different principles in different cases

This is What Winning Looks Like

Should still treat prisoners as humans (give food and water) Shoot only at clear targets (know what is behind your target, don't shoot children) Some locals don't want help Only help enough so that locals can fight war on own Should still treat people with respect even in death (not burying dead person in truck) Peace involves people making hard choices (British ambassador) NATO not doing what they promised (enemy still there, things won't be better after they leave) Boys raped and killed by police commanders (locals say that the boys want to be there but they try to escape) A lot of the locals couldn't go to the police academy due to failing the drug test Hard to form a functioning army without cooperation (from all people) People don't want to pick sides (tired after all these years, nice to whoever is in their backyard, feeling helpless, no one can help us) A ton of money and time goes into raising a child but it only take son bullet to end it all Taliban (guerrilla fighters, fight from their homes, hide among civilians) Hard to tell if someone is a double agent Don't tie up my hands, I am going with you willingly and this is shameful (people can just point out their local rivals) Hard to find evidence against suspected Taliban supporters and/or fighters Take down Taliban flag and set off land mines (climb up tree, IEDs) We have to show the strength of our people Still need small necessary things to win (fuel, people can't go anywhere) Costs $5,000 to become a lieutenant (police academy, Arabs don't have that money) Arabs don't have organization and money to run/fight on their own yet (can't read or write, system open to corruption, solar panels not connected to anything) System made for educated people Tower representing what they are doing (bend and twisted held up by string but is standing and working) People who have evidence against them still seem to get back into positions of power (don't know why this happens, MOI/military occupational information, money talks, frustrating others, suicides after returning home, know the game is up) 310 die a month on all sides (death rate and violence up for everyone, think that when they leave half the people will join the Taliban and the other half will just give up and do nothing) War in Afganistan Walzer gives sanitized versions of war Power dynamic (loyalty depends on power) Could have been fixed but went about it the wrong way, now its unfixable Double effect, Marines on Taliban Local police don't know what they are doing Connection to intervention in Kosovo: intervention needed but gone about the wrong way Wasted time/lives Diplomats don't want to hear about it (plausible deniability) Can't get rid of a group in an entire nation (promised to do so) Responsibility to stop violation of human rights once you intervene Account for war aims Failure to establish proper relationships Othering to Arabs (showering/washing) Jus post bellum People spread thin (can't fix everything, bandaids on everything, solar panels) Completely difference war on the ground (disconnect between those planning and those executing) Something that all decent people would agree on Knowledge of culture before going in Power vacuum: no one above them to rule, local police, no governing force, no one to condemn them, no authority of laws, institutional vacuum

Coercion and Responsibility

Siege of Jerusalem (Josephus, no one can escape) Women live longest in sieges, young men die first Goal of a siege is surrender (intentional deaths, not rules out by laws of war) Not necessary that a frontal assault fail before a siege is thought justifiable Titus: states that don't surrender are justly subject to total war Double effect: argued that agents who cause harm as a foreseen side effect of promoting a good end must be willing to accept additional risk or to forego some benefit in order to minimize how much harm they cause When they don't surrender either bombard strongholds and storm the city or besiege them Deaths is someones responsibility if you forcibly expose them to risks of war Legal norm is status quo Commander of besieging army isn't responsible because he didn't force them to their death place (he didn't lock them in, they could leave or surrender)

Why does Mill contend that, given what liberty is, interventions necessarily fail to uphold liberty?

Societies should be in control of themselves (not free if someone else is in control due to interventions)

In what way is Rawls following Kant's approach in Perpetual Peace?

State of nature and that world government would be a global despotism or a fragile empire torn by civil strife as various regions and peoples try to gain their political autonomy

Why, then, does Walzer argue that Hiroshima was unjustified?

The Japanese didn't post the same threat to peace and freedom that the Nazi's had People of Hiroshima didn't forfeit their rights

McCready

War is never desirable but sometimes it is both right and necessary (not evil) Neither pacifism (dominates western education) nor realism (dominates American policy making) adequately deals with the challenges of 21st century warfare Only the just war tradition provides clear guidance about when and how it is right to go to way and places this in the context of establishing a peace based on justice and equity All is not fair in war There are times when not going to war is wrong (one purpose of just war tradition is to assist those in authority in determining when these times exist) We must not allow our morality to be determined by the (im)morality of our enemy War is an ongoing experience in human society (we have to deal with it, we have to set rules) Just war thinking began with Augustine and Ambrose (later Aquinas) Early just war thinkers were more interested in establishing the rightness or wrongness is resorting to military force than in evaluating the propriety of how the war was fought Terrorism openly rejects the distinction between combatants and non-combatants (targets non-combatants, shock effort and softness of target) Terrorism wants to alienate the military from the people Contemporary terrorism disregards the just war tradition and the international laws of war derived from it When faced with an enemy determined on destruction neither government inaction nor mirroring of enemy acts is an acceptable option War is solely in the hands of the state Just wars are fought by nations for just purposes using just means Just war tradition looks at military force and sees if it is justifiable Prudence asks: given the justness of the war being considered, is the cost of going to war disproportionate to the intended result (the good received, answer usually a best guess) It is possible for there to be just war that might not necessarily be fought justly Moral significance between just war fought unjustly and unjust war fought justly Pacifism/realism: letting others destroy our values or destroy them ourselves though disproportionate and/or indiscriminate means (in defending our basic values we must do something but we may not do everything that comes to mind) Burke: evil thrives when people do nothing Evil must be fought because it won't just go away Realism considers national interest the bottom line (agrees with pacifism that use of force is evil but justifies the use of force in some situations as the lesser evil) Temptation to go to realism when combating terrorism Peters: ethics in war for Western society doesn't protect the objects of our violence as they shield us from the verity of our actions Shouldn't place war outside our moral world Ignatieff: either fight evil with evil or succumb to it, good ends justify evil means (wrong because all use of force isn't evil) Terrorism is one form of asymmetric warfare, but not all asymmetric warfare is terrorism (hard to define terrorism because it is a political loaded term) Terrorists target non-combatants for ecumenic, religious, political, or military goals (can target military but not main goal, reject noncombatant immunity) Terrorists place themselves outside the just war and law of international war (tool for weaker state against greater power) Asymmetric methods require an appreciation for the other power's vulnerabilities Contemporary asymmetric warfare is not more political than it is military Asymmetric warfare seems to change all rules (tactical, strategic, and moral, attacks enemy mental framework) Chinese: war is set by rules but these rules are made by the West (weak countries don't need to fight by the rules) Immunity of noncombatants is important to just war thinking (protect not kill) Outsourcing creates problems (blurring combatant and noncombatant line, same jobs) Just war thinking warns against hating one's enemies (Augustine rightful intention, in dehumanizing our enemy we also dehumanize ourselves, this leads to underestimating them as well) What is lawful and what is moral is not always the same Final decision lies with the responsible authority not with the ethical advisor Just war theory challenges American exceptionalism (American actions measured the same as action of other nations) Crusades or holy wars could lead to total war without limits or moral constraints (not proportional or discriminatory) Should have an addition of jus post bellum to just war thinking Augustine: peace is removing of hostilities not destroying enemies (such peace requires establishment of justice and equity) Jus post bellum should be considered before going to war Doing the right thing post bellum can reduce tensions and the likelihood of a renewed conflict (not include exit strategy) Tempting to say extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures (ends justify the means, not right) Responding to terrorism with terrorism is immoral and ineffective (maybe even counterproductive) Realists tempt is to descend to the moral level of our enemies In a world married by sin accomplishing justice sometimes requires the application of force (just war theory offers criteria of when or not when it should be used)

This Israeli Supreme Court ruling was delivered by the celebrated jurist Aharon Barak (known as the 'John Marshall' of Israel). Look closely at the argument. How does the court approach the problem of distinguishing between civilian and combatant?

Civilians have to be actively engaging in hostilities (not combatants, don't lose status as civilian but subject to risks without rights of combatants)

Consider the story of the 'potato partisans' at the beginning of chapter 11 in Walzer. How is it that their actions are not murder?

Defending their home even after the war is over

Do you think that Prime Minister Golda Meir responded correctly to the terrorist attack at the 1972 Olympics?

I am not sure, I don't know if target kills is the right response in any situation

Do you agree or disagree with Walzer and why?

I am not sure, depends on the situation and what the potato partisans were fighting for

What, if anything, justifies the bombing of civilian populations?

Imminence of the danger and its nature (both must be applied)

When can a siege be justified?

Not sure

What does he expect from the individual citizen? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Not to try to get rid of sin/wrong, wars it from your hands

Concluding Reflections

Respect for human rights is one of the conditions imposed on any political regime to be in good standing of a just political society of peoples If a society is treated fairly, they will expect no less from their own society and others (scope of toleration can be extended though) External intervention is justified depending on the extremity fo the case

The Right to Leave

Siege of Leningrad (more than a million dies due to starvation and disease) Hard to evacuate (even when danger is imminent is will still encounter civilian resistance, some paint desertion as dishonorable) No one should escape Leader charged with war crimes (defense was that it was customary practice in war, legal handbooks) The inhabitants of a city though they have freely chosen to live within its walls have not chose to live under siege (siege is act of coercion, violation of status quo) Commander of sieging army can't escape responsibility (no right to wage total war) Civilians performing essential services to the army won't be let out Another example coercion: people must leave their homes to maintain their immunity When judging forms of warfare that closely involve civilian population (sieges and guerrilla war) the issue of coercion and consent take precedence over issue of direction and indirection Handicaps don't make siege operations entirely impractical it just makes them more difficult

Walzer Chapter 16

Supreme Emergency

What responsibilities does the Israeli government have (to their own citizens, to innocent civilians, to the rule of law)?

They should protect their people (their lives, likelihood, way of life, what they value) Could be eliminating threats (imminent/real threats) without collateral damage of innocents

Quiz Notes 1/17/20

Thoreau seeks a better government Satyagraha is a non-violent process of questioning both government and society and a state of mind that makes all who achieve it victorious no matter their material condition When confronted with ethical choices Thoreau turns to his conscience For Thoreau abolitionists in Massachusetts should withdraw in word and property from the government in Massachusetts Gandhi considers non-violence to be a weapon of the strong, the other side of the coin from truth, and the law of love For Gandhi the law that governs mankind is love The following problem in Marxism was recognized by MLK: there is no room for god, human beings became cogs in machines within Marxism, and relativism within Marxism leads to unethical behaviors When MLK encountered the writing of Niebuhr he needed to reconcile his non-violence with the theology of Niebuhr, in attempting to do so he found Niebuhr's position has shortcoming, it was that Niebuhr interpreted pacifism as a passive nonresistance to evil based on a naive trust in the power of love Walzer can't agree with the past of non-violence, he argues that Gandhi's position collapses into violence against oneself For Walzer non-violent resistance depends on noncombatant immunity, significant mobilization among the people and enemy soldier coercing without violence Why does Rawls want to save room in the law of peoples for nonliteral societies: allowing only liberal societies into the law of peoples would not express liberalism's own principles of toleration For Rawls a well-ordered society is peaceful, not expansionist, remains legitimate in the eyes of the peoples, and honors human rights A constructivist view differs from most philosophical views (classical utilitarianism, rational intuitionism, perfectionism) because is doesn't accept universally valid first principles The distinction between the law of peoples and the law of nations is the law of nations is the existing legal order, incomplete as it is, the law of peoples is the family of political concepts including right, justice, and the common good According to Rawls the two kinds of well-ordered societies are liberal and hierarchical In the case of liberal societies in particular, three conditions for representation in the original position are essential, they are citizens are fairly and reasonable represented, each citizen is represented as rational, decisions are mad between available principles by appropriate reasons Rawls accepts Kant's problem with a world government by arguing that it would be either a global despotism or a fragile empire torn by frequent civil strife According to Rawls, the principles of justice between free and democratic peoples will include the observation of treaties, a duty of nonintervention, and the honoring of human rights According to Rawls, hierarchical societies may be well-ordered yet still accept basic inequalities For Rawls human rights are different from constitutional rights, a special class of rights of universal applications and a part of a law of peoples

Why does Walzer contend that prudence and justice might be used to understand the mixed-motives of intervention?

Wanting to make things right and protect basic rights but don't want to go about it in a way that makes things worse (not want to stick your nose where it doesn't belong)

Do you find McCready's defense of Just War thinking persuasive? What counterarguments could you offer?

Yes Can be extremely difficult to have post bellum laws set in place before war

Tribunal 4 Prosecution

300,000 killed 78,000 injured, 7.5 million homeless Inaccurate planes Didn't impede German war effort (economy sustained) Under principle of double effect the idea of supreme emergency justifies the killing of non-combatant civilians in order to save more lives from the possibility of a future threat (utilitarian argument: necessary over human rights, problematic: necessity often compromised it's subjective, human rights can't be compromised) Even in supreme emergency, civilians should never be direct targets (Walzer) Due care: effort to reduce risk of civilians British hadn't exhausted all strategic possibilities prior to strike Civilians misinformed about bombing campaign Purpose of supreme emergency to justify vile war acts

How can their actions be legally justified? Morally justified?

Defending their homes even after the war is over Support of the people More like assassination

What type of government would he prefer?

Democracy, more free.

Prosecution Tribunal 3

Germans: crimes against humanity Non aggression pact 200,000 combatants and 3 million civilians Germans: not allowing surrender, no one leaves Attempt at elimination not surrender Siege justified: enemy gives right of passage and right of surrender, military necessity 1 million civilians dies die to starvation/disease

Walzer Secession

Hungarians sought diplomatic recognition not military intervention Need evidence that a community exists whose members are committed to independence and ready to be able to determine the conditions of their own existence Palmerson: if destruction of Austria would shatter the peace of Europe then a British intervention ensuring that defeat would not have been honorable and virtuous

Tribunal 4 Notes

If technology wasn't up to par, why use it Why kill people in order to get them to resist (wouldn't that just make them mad against the Britians) Britain purposefully targeting civilians 1941: Britain maybe justified but Germany weakened in 1942-45 1945: Dresdon Supreme Emergency: power dynamics, enemy will not respect rights post bellum, threat must be imminent war existential in nature (future of nation and life of citizens threatened), every single other option exhausted Hard to define "strike on civilians" Modern technology

'The revolutionary reveals his freedom in the same way as he earns it, by directly confronting his enemies and refraining from attacks on anyone else.' Is this quotation from Walzer accurate or does it represent a Western moralizing that fundamentally misunderstands the practical problems of fighting in a revolutionary struggle?

It is what is imagined, perfect senario

Given the fact that innocent civilians are affected, how can we determine the moral limitations on such actions?

Knowing whether or not the civilians had the chance to leave

Thoreau argues that the modern war-making state is a threat to individual freedom. What are his reasons for making this claim?

Minority has the power Men as only machines

How does Rawls define human rights?

Moral conception, ideas of peace and justice, "thinner" idea that can alloy to different societies

Do Morgenthau and Niebuhr share a similar view of morality?

Morgenthau says morality stems from human nature and that political realism disregards that Niebuhr says that morality stems from the idea that every man is good natured at some level

Is his rights-based approach sufficient to overcome the ambiguity of double effect?

Not quite, there will still be ambiguity with all situations involving civilian casualties (like how they got there, could they escape, intent)

What roles do rights play for Rawls?

Part of reasonable law of peoples Three roles of human rights: they're being fulfilled in a necessary condition of a regime's legitimacy and of the decency of its legal order, their fulfillment is also sufficient to exclude justified and forceful intervention by other peoples (economic sanctions or in grave cases by military force), and they set a moral limit to pluralism among peoples Rights play a special role in the present age (universal application, hardly controversial)

Do you think that MLK's vision is applicable to the problem of war? Why or why not?

Perhaps

Does one side of the conflict in The Battle of Algiers provide a more compelling moral stance than the other?

Pointe: National Liberation Front, Algerian independence, guerrilla like war against Algerian authorities Maybe the rebels because they just want their independence but are not going about it the right way (they see no other option)

Utility and Proportionality

Sidgwick: in the conduct of hostilities it is not permissible to do any mischief which does not tend materially to the end of victory nor any mischief of which the conduciveness to the end is slight in comparison with the amount of mischief (prohibiting excess harm, tries to impose an economy of force) Determination of excess: victory/military necessity and notion of proportionality (not just immediate harm to individuals but also any injury to the permeant interest of mankind against the contribution that mischief makes to the end of victory) Argument sets the interest of individuals and of mankind at a lesser value than the victory that is being sought (any act of force that contributes in a significant war to winning a war is likely to be permissible) Our moral judgments weigh upon purely military considerations and will rarely be sustained in the face of an analysis of battle conditions or campaign strategy by a qualified professional Hard to condemn soldiers for anything they did in the course of a battle or a war that they honestly believed and had good reason to believe was necessary or important or useful in determining the outcome (do what they must to win) Rules of war only rule out purposeless or wanton violence (could eliminate a great deal of cruelty of war) In Sidgwick's view a good general is a moral man Belligerent armies are entitled to try to win their wars but they are not entitled to do anything that is or seems to them necessary to win (subject to set of restrictions on ideas of states and moral principles) No limit is accepted simply because it is thought that it will be useful (war convention must first be morally plausible to larges numbers of people, must correspond with our sense of what is right)

Resistance to Military Occupation

Surprise is the essential feature of guerrilla war Kind of ambush not legitimate in conventional war: prepared behind political or moral rather than natural cover (resistance fighters disguised as potato farmers, Transend says they should wear identifiable caps or arm bands, disguised as people of surrendering state) Surrender is an explicit agreement and exchange Moral commitment some may feel to defend their homeland and their political community even after the war is officially over Resistance is legitimate but the punishment of resistance is also legitimate Guerrilla fighters challenge the most fundamental principles pf the rules of war by wearing peasant closes and hiding among the civilian population

CRF Background

Targeted killings are premeditated acts of lethal force employed by states in times of peace or during armed conflict to eliminate specific individuals outside their custody "Targeted killing" is not a term distinctly defined under international law The primary focus of U.S. targeted killings, particularly through drone strikes, has been on the al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership networks in Afghanistan and the remote tribal regions of Pakistan. However, U.S. operations have expanded in recent years to include countries such as Somalia and Yemen The domestic legal underpinning for U.S. counterterrorism operations is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), it empowers the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" in pursuit of those responsible for the terrorist attacks. Peacetime assassinations have been officially banned by the United States since 1976 The White House maintains that the U.S. right to self-defense, as laid out in Article 51 of the UN charter, may include the targeted killing of persons both in and out of declared theaters of war Holder says that it would be lawful to target a U.S. citizen if the individual poses an imminent threat, capture is not feasible, and the operation were executed in observance of the applicable laws of war Brennan addressed the standards by which the administration authorizes lethal strikes on al-Qaeda outside Afghanistan: deciding if the target is a significant threat to U.S. interests, being cognizant of state sovereignty issues, having high confidence in the target's identity and that innocent civilians will not be harmed, and, finally, engaging in an additional review process if the individual is a U.S. citizen Waxman says that while the strike on bin Laden would normally be a violation of state sovereignty, the U.S. government "is well within its rights" to use force on foreign soil without consent if there is an overriding necessity of self-defense What methods does the US apply: drone strikes and kill/capture missions CFR's Micah Zenko says that while drone strikes are an effective military tactic, "military victory is not tantamount to political success" Drone strikes are not that costly

Walzer Chapter 12

Terrorism

Walzer 18

The crime of aggression: political leaders and citizens War is not fought under aegis of necessity but most often freedom then soldiers and statesmen have to make choices that are sometimes moral choices If there is such a thing as aggression there must be aggressors (not every violation of human rights can name a guilty person or group) There can't be justice in war if there are not responsible people Question of moral responsibility, concerned with blameworthiness or individuals not their legal guilt or innocence Morality is nothing more than endless talk where every talker has an equal right to his opinions Morality is unimportant if all views are equal because then no particular opinion has any force Laws of war are radically incomplete (makes moral argument especially important) The law must provide some recourse when our deepest moral values are savagely attacked

Why is a utilitarian defense of killing non-combatants inadequate for Walzer?

Their thoughts in his en bello is restrained Provides only general endorsement of war convention (unlikely to specify rules to all but only particular course of action)

Human rights Walzer

A legitimate act of war is one that does not violate the rights of the people against whom it is directed, it is life and liberty that are at issue though we are now concerned with these two as they are individually rather than collectively possessed No one can be forced to fight or to risk his life, no one can be threatened with war or warred against unless through some act of his own he has surrendered or lost his rights When soldiers respect bans they are not action kindly or gently or magnanimously they are acting justly (ban on rape and murder is a matter of rights) States exist to defend the rights of their members but it is a difficulty in the theory of war that the collective defense of rights renders them individually problematic Soldiers who do the fighting (though rarely said to have chose to fight) lose the rights they are supposed to be depending (gain war rights but an be attacked and killed at will, simply by fighting they have lost their title to life and liberty) Napoleon: soldiers are made to be killed and that is why war is hell (no one else though is made not be killed, everyone else maintains their rights) Even an aggressor state can rightly punish war criminals (rules of war apply with equal force to aggressors and their adversaries, not just moral equality but rights of civilians) Soldiers fighting for an aggressor state are not themselves criminals hence their war rights are the same as those of their opponents, soldiers fighting against an aggressor state have no license to become criminals hence they are subject to the same restraint as their opponents Bystanders don't forfeit their rights when their states wrongly got to war People can't be used for some military purpose even a legitimate one In international society it is hard to distinguishes between innocent bystanders and third parties

The World of Officials

Aggression is the work of political leaders Acts of state can't be the crimes of individual persons All of us are capable of judging the acts of political leaders and we commonly do so Another more informal versions of acts of state refers not to sovereignty of political community but to the representativeness of its leaders Statesmen don't act selfishly or for private reasons (struggling in good conscience to serve the broad national interest according to their lights, acting for the sake of other people and in their name, same can be said for military officers except when the crimes they commit are passionate or selfish) The misuse of law and morality is common in wartime Acts of state are also acts of particular persons and when they take the form of aggressive war particular persons are criminally responsible Easy to see head of state's accountable because they are the source of the orders Difference between the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of aggressive war Nuremberg trials (weisaecker took part in preparing an aggressive war but was opposed and objected to it, sent to prison for not objecting to extermination of jews, opposition presented in expediential terms) One can't commission murder in hopes of one days getting rid of the murderer Gerstein maintained his office to sabotage (possible to live moral life in the SS but at the cost of personal agony, he killed himself)

Notes 1/16/19

Augustine/Vitoria: just war theorists Kant: 1724-1804 Thoreau: 1817-1862 (1845 Texas independent from Mexico, 1846-1848 Mexican American War) Gandhi: 1869-1948 MLK: 1928-1968

Three Preliminary Questions

Before showing how the extension of the law of peoples can be carried out, is it important first to distinguish between two parts of justice is fairness or of any other similar liberal and constructivist conception of justice (liberal and hierarchal societies can agree on the same law of the peoples and so this law doesn't depend on aspects peculiar to western tradition, the war power of governments whatever they may be are only those acceptable within a reasonable law of peoples) In working out the law of the peoples, why do we start with those societies well ordered by liberal views somewhat more general than justice is fairness (wouldn't it be better to start with the world as a whole, no clear initial answer, all proposed principles and standards for the law of peoples should prove acceptable to the considered and reflective opinion of peoples and their governments) Distinction between law of peoples, and the law of nations or international law (latter lacking in effectives schemes of sanctions that normally characterizes domestic law, law of peoples is a family of political concepts along with the principles of right/justice/common good that specify the content of a liberal conception of justice worked up to extend and apply to international law, it provided the concepts and principles by reference to which that law should be judged)

Tribunal 4 Defense

Bombing not due to revenge Reduce living conditions of German civilians not to exterminate them Result 1/3rd estimated damage Inaccurate bombers due to other aim power used in defense Danger imminent and horrible nature Moral/ethical issues in German worse than ever seen Bombing became more accurate over time Point to reduce supplies not people Need to go against/destroy a totalitarian society to preserve peace (British had to win the war to save millions from the Nazi Regime) British expect slaughter form Germany due to how they treated the USSR Wanting to demoralize German people and get then to resist the Nazi Regime

In what way could one interpret 'multilateral economic sanctions' as a modern form of either a siege or a blockade?

Cutting off economic intake of other countries and/or societies

Overriding the Rules of War

Decision to bomb German cities (300,000 killed 780,000 injured) Purpose of raids was to destroy civilian morale Cherwell: thought it possible to render 1/3rd of the German population homeless by 1943 Defended as reprisals for the German blitz (problematic, revenge was a worse one) Most support for bombings came from rural areas least affected by bombings Debate clouded by emotion Didn't want to imitate Hitler (not wanting to target civilians) Deaths desirable if they remained a by-product of the primary intention to hit a military target Harris: only destruction of cities would bring the fighting to a quick conclusion Churchill: bombers alone provide the means of victory (certainty no one can have) Here in a supreme emergency one might be required to override the rights of innocent people and chatter the war convention A wager is not an experiment (even if one wagers and wins it is possible that they were wrong and that the crime was unnecessary to victory) Bombers can't search out right people Destruction of Dresden made Churchill think twice Argument used between 1942 and 1945 in defense of terror bombing was utilitarian in character (emphasis not on victory but on the time and price of victory) Calculations shouldn't only focus on preserving life but preserving way of life (civilization and morality, slaughter of innocent people can't be justified simply because it saves the lives of other people) We can recognize their horror only when we have acknowledged the personality and value of the people we destroy in committing them Acknowledgment of rights stops calculations and force us to realize that the destruction of the innocent is a kind of blasphemy against out deepest moral commitments (true even in supreme emergency when we can't do anything else)

Walzer Justice in Settlements

Doing justice in the legalist sense isn't always the right thing to do (can't be the goal of counter-interventions) American war in Korea was a described as a police action (decision to cross was an example of military hubris more than democratic idealism) Melzer: there is an overwhelming tendency in wartime to adjust the ends to mean (initially narrow goals in order to fit the avail military forces and technologies) Domestic conventions and capture and punishment don't fit requirements of International society (legalist paradigm) Purpose of domestic policy work to stamp out illegal violence but only cope with particular violent acts Further military action may be necessary before a peace settlement can be worked out that provides even minimal security for the victim: disengagement, demilitarization, arms cantor, external arbitration, ect Objective of war is a better state of peace (not safe but safer, just wars are limited wars, not invulnerable but less vulnerable) Hume: add obstinacy and passion to its of what statesmen defend Realists unrealistically look for a single enemy Popular maxim: in war there is no substitute for victory (silly because doesn't offer definition of victory, morally false because thinks of enemy as utterly broken) Wars can end too soon (there always is a humanitarian impulse to stop the fighting, cease fires don't always serve the purposes of humanity, unless they create a better state of peace they may simply fix the conditions under which the fighting will be resumed at a later time with a new intensity)

Walzer Afterward

Dream of a war is to end war Armageddon leads to an image of a peaceful age End of war is also end of secular history Nonviolence differs from conventional strategies in that it concedes that overrunning of the country that is being defeated (no obstacles capable of stopping a military advance of preventing military occupation) Nonviolence has been practiced in the face of an invasion only after violence or the threat of violence has failed Not was but civilian resistance that has been usually regarded as a last resort (war holds out the possibility of avoiding occupation that evokes or requires resistance) Nonviolence de-escalates the conflict and diminishes its criminality When nonviolent by itself replaces aggressive war with political struggle it can't by itself determine the means of struggle Orwell: importance of exemplary leadership and wide publicity in a nonviolent campaign Nonviolence is not a defense against tyrants willing to do horrible things If country goes silent, resistance will be a matter of individual heroism or heroism of small groups but not a collective struggle Political struggle is better than fighting Resistance stands for the communal will to survive (the heroism of civilians is more heartening than that of soldiers) Nonviolent resistance is possible on a significant level only if civilians are already mobilized and prepared to act together Nonviolent defense doesn't bring fear but disgust and shame (success of defense is entirely dependent upon the moral convictions and sensibilities of the enemy soldiers) Nonviolent defense depends upon noncombatant immunity (war without weapons) The restraint of war is the beginning of peace Nonviolence (true pacifism) against aggressor without a moral code (Nazism) is violence against oneself (suicide) Thesis: nonviolence can be useful if other side has a moral code (only then)

The Limits of Calculation

Dwight was wrong (they accepted the assignment because they though of themselves as specialists and not as complete men, they didn't accept the assignment they sought it out) People without political power or following so when their work was done they couldn't control its use (people who made the bombs) Bomb claimed to have been used to shorten the agony of war (Truman, accepted war is hell doctrine, war is itself to blame and the men who begin it) War is hell doctrine evades tension between jus ad bellum and jus en bello, undercuts need to hard arguments, relaxes our sense of moral restraint (distorted view) Only possible defense for Hiroshima is a utilitarian calculation made without the sliding scale (calculation made where there was no room for it, a claim to override the rules of war and the rights of Japanese civilians) Americans in Japan adopted the British policy of terrorism (avoid a vast indefinite butchery at the cost of few explosions, Churchill in support) even if we had been fighting in strict accordance with the war convention the continuation of the struggle was not something forced upon us (had to do with our war aims) Japanese case different from German one because unconditional surrender should have never been asked (only morally required that they be defeated not be conquered or totally overthrown) If people have a right not to be forced tonight, they also have the right not to be forced to continue fighting beyond the point when the war might justly be concluded (beyond that point there can be no supreme emergencies, no arguments of military necessity, and not cost-accounting in human lives, to press the war forward is to re-commit the crime of aggression) Americans owed the Japanese an experiment in negotiation (to kill and terrorize citizens without experiment was a double crime) Utilitarian calculation can force us to violate the rules of war only when we are face-to-face with defeat but its a defeat likely to bring disaster to a political community (relevant only to conflict between winning and fighting well not to internal problems of conflict itself)

How a Social Contract Doctrine is Universal in its Reach

Every society must have a conception of how it is related to other societies and how it is to conduct itself towards them (the idea of political justice doesn't cover everything) Extend liberal ideas of justice (justice as fairness) to law of the peoples (Leibniz and Locke ideas are universal in the way that their principles apply to all reasonable beings everywhere, universality of a doctrine is the direct consequence of the source of authority and how it was formulated) By contrast, a constructivist view (justice as fairness) don't being from universal first principles having authority in all cases (parties adopt principles of justice for each kind of subject as it arises, universal when its principles are relevant for all political subjects) Constructivism doesn't view variation in numbers of people alone as accounting for the appropriateness of different principles in different cases (rather is is the distinct structure of the social framework and the purpose and rolls of its parts)

Nature of Necessity (3)

Everyone's troubles make a crisis Emergency and crisis are cant words used to prepare our minds for act of brutality Every war is an emergency, every battle a possible turning point Fear and hysteria push us towards fearful measure and criminal behavior (war convention is a bar to such measures, not always effective but there nevertheless) Supreme emergency says that there is a fear beyond the ordinary fearfulness of war and a danger to which that fear corresponds Criteria of supreme emergency: imminence of the danger and its nature (both must be applied, sometimes closeness only applied because hard to agree on seriousness) Back to the wall means extremity Baldwin: people will necessarily adopt extreme measures is such measures are necessary either to escape death to to avoid military defeat (Walzer disagrees, won't target innocents on purpose, moral code) Different forms of danger makes a difference Soldiers are encouraged to fight fiercely if they believe they are fighting for the survival of their country of families Regions of desperation and disaster constitute rule of necessity Nazi rule constituted supreme emergency (lesser threats might not do so compared to this, general danger) Can soldiers and statesmen override the rights of innocent people for the sake of their own political community (what choice do they have) Individuals can't kill other individuals to save themselves but to save a nation we can violate the rights of a determinate but smaller number of people (larger and smaller nations have different entitlements) Mere recognition of a threat is not coercive, it neither compels nor permits attacks on the innocent, so long as other means of fighting and winning are available

Human Rights

Features of human rights: don't depend on any particular comprehensive moral doctrine or philosophical doctrine of human nature (basic human rights are to express a minimum standard of well ordered political institutions for all who belong) Imposition of duties and obligations implies a common good conception of justice and good faith on part of the officials to explain and justify the legal order to those bound by it (people by responsibly and cooperative members of society) Members of groups: communities, associations, and corporations (Hegel agrees) Basic human rights can be protected in a well ordered hierarchal state by its consultation hierarchy these rights are guaranteed and the requirement that a system of law must impose moral rights and duties is met Rights play a special role in the present age (universal application, hardly controversial) Three roles of human rights: they're being fulfilled in a necessary condition of a regime's legitimacy and of the decency of its legal order, their fulfillment is also sufficient to exclude justified and forceful intervention by other peoples (economic sanctions or in grave cases by military force), and they set a moral limit to pluralism among peoples

The Status of Individuals

First principle of war convention is that once war has begun soldiers are subject to attack at any time (unless wounded or captured, doesn't take into account that few soldiers are wholeheartedly committed to the business of fighting) One doesn't want to kill someone who isn't a fighting man (simply a man) There is always a nonmilitary alternative Owen: German looked too funny, taken prisoner Graves: naked German bathing, someone else shot him Orwell: messenger with falling pants (you don't feel like) Trevelyan: man walking like forgot war, similar to yourself Lussu: Austrians having coffee, not expect to see human in enemy lines, to fight is one thing to kill a man is another Everyone has a right to life (recognize a fellow creature) War might not be someone's enterprise (surviving this battle and avoiding the next, enterprise of their class) The standards of permissibility rest on the rights of individuals but not precisely defined by the rights

Quiz 6

For Morgenthau international politics is a struggle for power According to Morgenthau the struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience In terms of morality, Morgenthau is clear that there is no political morality without prudence Niebuhr's understanding of Christianity suggests that god's grace is both a demonstration of the possibilities of human existence and god's forgiveness of our imperfections, this forgiveness extends to the human sin of war For Nieguhr tyranny is not a state of war but one of peace Niebuhr suggests that human nature is defined by sin True pacifism for Niebhur is necessary as it allows those who go to war to not become sallows to the horror of war, proceeds from the conviction that the true end of man is brotherhood, love is the law of life, and it should be respected and understood by the church

Democratic Responsibilities

Hope for collective responsibility The people are the victims of military occupation, political reconstruction, and the exaction of reparative payments (collective punishment, costs distributed though tax system, often spreading to generations that didn't have anything to do with the war) Gray argues that political destiny is a kind of guilt (existential, unavoidable, and frightening, can't cut oneself loose, shame, behind collective responsibility is meta-physical guilt deriving from our failure as human beings to live in accordance with out potentialities and our vision of the good) Grays principle (Walzer adopts): the greater the possibility of free action in the communal sphere the greater the degree fo guilt for evil deeds done in the name of everyone (focus our attention on democratic rather than authoritarian regimes) American war in Vietnam was an unjustified intervention and was carried on in so brutal a manner than even had it initially been defensible it would have been condemned generally Democracy is a way of distributing responsibility (monarch is a way of refusing to distribute it) Even in a perfect democracy it can't be said that every citizen is the author of every state policy though every one of them can rightly be called to account Those who voted against the war or who refuse to cooperate in the waging of it could not be blamed (those who don't vote are blameworthy though not guilty of aggressive war, people who can do things but don't are also blameworthy less so that those who didn't vote though) One must do all he can, short of accepting frightening risks, to prevent of stop a war (Gray: the more one can do the more he must do) When a state with elected/supported/representative officials goes to war, its citizens are likely to go along (believe their leaders know best, they're people who are or may be blameworthy not for aggressive war but for bad faith as citizens) Only day to day assumption of responsibility creates a communal sphere and gives it meaning Some could be mistaken in judgments of the war (in moral life one makes allowances for false beliefs misinformation and honest mistakes to a degree) The real moral burden of the American War in Vietnam fell on that subset of people whose knowledge and sense of possibility were made manifest by their oppositional activity Intellectual work to make political less difficult during war: describing as graphical as one can the moral reality fo war, talk about what it means to force people to fight, and analyze the nature of democratic responsibilities (giving time for those to reflect without being in danger)

The Rights of Civilian Supporters

If civilians didn't have rights is wouldn't be a benefit to hide among them Guerrilla war is a political, even an ideological conflict American "rules of engagement": (in Vietnam specifically, villages from which hostile fire might reasonably be expected were shelled and bomber before soldiers moved in and even if no movement was planned), civilians were given warning in advance of the destruction of their villages so that they could break from the guerrillas expel them to leave themselves (risk imposed on entire village) Rules of engagement: village could be bombed or shelled without warning if American troops had received fire within it, Any village known to be hostile could be bombed or shelled if its inhabitants were warned in advance, once civilian population had been moved out the village and surrounding country might be declared a "free fire zone" that could be shelled and bombed at will Rules radically ineffective Large guerrilla support in Vietnam In peacetime there is some requirement to provide adequate economic support and comparable living space (not possible in Vietnam due to large scope of conflict) American officer in town of Ben Tre: we had to destroy the town in order to save it Increased risk of intimacies Anti-guerrilla war is a terrible strain on conventional troops Can't be randomly bombed without warning (even with warning given) Political hostility doesn't make people enemies in the sense of the war convention Bombing and shelling at a distance have been defended in terms of military necessity (bad an argument strategically as it is morally) Counter-insurgency requires a strategy and tactics of discrimination (guerrillas can only be defeated or win at close distance) Guerrillas can return after enemies leave (success requires that the military operation is followed by a political campaign) If it is always morally possible to fight, it is not always possible to do whatever is required to win A war can't and shouldn't be won if the only available strategy involves a war against civilians

Walzer Unconditional Surrender

If soldiers die in small numbers, they can attribute some meaning to their deaths Want to say they didn't die in vain (if can't anger mixes with our mourning, a soldier who dies in a just war doesn't die in vain) Wars can be fought if some universal moral principle requires it (threat to peace or democracy should be destroyed) Unconditional surrender: traditional moralists all-or-nothing American approach to the problem of war and peace (example with Churchill doesn't want to be bound to Germany, not bound to German government but bound to German people, no such thing in the moral world) Kennan: unconditional surrender shouldn't have been talked about but compromise for Hitler was impracticable and unthinkable Crusade: war fought for religious or idealogical purposes (no defense or law enforcement, just creation of new political orders and at mass conservations) Authoritarian states are more likely to wage war than democratic ones (not true, Athens) War effects more people than domestic crime and punishment Aggression was the least of Hitler's crimes (extermination, exile, political dismemberment)

Taking Aim and the Doctrine of Double Effect

Issue is more difficult when an entire country is subject to a siege Contemporary laws of war require that such efforts be directed, whatever their indirect effects, only against the armed forces of the enemy The impossibility of free exit rules out any direct attack on the civilian population Military supplies can't be destroyed without first destroying civilian supplies (civilians suffer long before the soldiers feel the pinch) British blockade of Germany Conditional contraband: can't be seized unless it was known to be destined for military use Rules undermined in WWI: extending notion of a blockade and then assuming the military iniquity of all conditional contraband (result was full scale economic warfare) Half a million civilian deaths were directly attributable to diseases resulting from deprivations imposed by the British blockade Blockade target military ends and Germans pushed civilians to the front line of economic war War right to starve citizens When taking aim at enemy army might be through the civilian population Success of British strategy didn't depend on civilian deaths (civilians had to be hit before soldiers can be hit) Can risk incidental deaths but can't kill civilians simply because he finds them between himself and his enemies

The Nature of Necessity (1)

Kriegsraison: reason of war, doctrine that justifies not only whatever is necessary to win the war by also whatever is necessary to reduce the risks of losing or simply reduce losses or the likelihood of losses in the course of war (not of necessity but of probabilities and risk) Reason of war can only justify killing of people we already have reason to think are liable to be killed (not risk but status of individuals) War today is as much an economic as a military activity Judgements we make depend on our understanding of the people involved The arms makes the army People ought not be attacked is their activities can be stopped or their product seized or destroyed in some other way and without significant risk Submarine warfare: the Lavinia affair Naval warfare most gentlemanly form of fighting (nature of the sea as the battlefield) Sink on sight was policy of German government (rules changed probably because the germans lost) Laconia order: sink without warning and don't help crew of sunken ships, Doenitz) affair was ignorance on all sides with mutual fear and suspicion

Nonideal Theory: Unfavorable Conditions

Lack the political and cultural traditions, human capital, and resources that make well ordered impossible Some think difference principle should be adopted (not feasible here only in domestic justice in a democratic society) Wealthier society still have duties and obligations to burdened societies (problem is often not the lack of natural resources, well ordered societies can get along with little) Problem is usually the nature public political culture and the religious and philosophical traditions that underlie its institutions The Difference Principle permits diverging from strict equality so long as the inequalities in question would make the least advantaged in society materially better off than they would be under strict equality

Walzer Humanitarian Intervention

Legitimate government is one that can fight its own internal wars Rightly called counter-intervention only when it balances, and does no more to balance, the prior intervention of another power, making it possible once again for the local forces to win or lose on their own (outcome of civil wars should reflect not the relative strength of the intervening states, but the local alignment of forces) Humanitarian intervention is rare: states don't send their soldiers into other states only in order to save lives The lives of foreigners don't weight that heavily in the scales of domestic decision-making (consider the moral significance of mixed motives) Reasons to go to war that are economic and strategic: American investment in Cuban sugar Cuban insurgents requests of the U.S. (1898): we recognize their provisional government as the legitimate government of Cuba, we provide their army with military supplies, and American warships blockage Cuban coast and cut off supplies of Spanish army (U.S. invaded without recognizing insurgents, defeated and replaced Spanish army) Humanitarian intervention involves military action on behalf of oppressed people (can't stand in the way of their achievement) Intervention should be as much of non-intervention as possible Indian invasion of East Pakistan in 1971 was humanitarian intervention because it was a rescue, in and out quick, defeating army but not replacing it, imposing no political controls on emerging state of Bangladesh (purpose was to win the war though) People who initiate massacres lose their right to participate in the normal process of domestic self-determination (their military defeat is morally necessary) Humanitarian interventions require crossing of international borders and that is ruled out by legalistic paradigm unless they are authorized by a society of nations (police are self-appointed) Moral choices not just made but also judged Humanitarian intervention is justified when it is a response to acts that shock the moral conscience of mankind Any state capable of stopping the slaughter has a right to try to do so Legalist paradigm revision: states can be invaded and wars justly begin to assist secessionist movements to balance the prior interventions of other powers, and to rescue peoples threatened with massacre Standards to judge what happens next: reflect deep and valuable, through in their applications difficult and problematic, commitments to human rights

Tribunal 3 Notes

Morgenthau/Sherman: avoid war when you can but if you need to go to war go all in Soviets: crimes against humanity, inhumane acts against their own civilians, neglect of the people's well being Germans: specifically Von Leeb, war crimes, desolation not justified by necessity, want for destruction of cities Yes arguments: SU didn't stock supplies, putting people at risk, non-combatant line is blurred, should have been evacuating not bringing in more, soviets forced citizens to stay/train No arguments: using civilians as service, non-combatant line blurred, decision to leave is very complicated Disputed points: path of exit, non-combat stars, "no surrender", German ultimate goal When military blockades are just: utopian/unrealistic ideals, viable path to evacuation (noncontinuous), option to surrender (individualized to citizens without coercion), cost of lives need to be Lowe than direct assault, if it goes for too long it should be considered ineffective and new plans must be active (low long it too long), must adhere to declaration of HR (both sides, all involved), must be military necessary (hard to determine by necessary)

Walzer Self-determination and Self-Help

No state can admit to fighting an aggressive war and then defend its actions Intervention often threatens the territorial integrity and political independence of invaded states (must be justified) Mill: treat states as self-determining communities whether or not their internal political arrangements are free (self-determining describes not only a particular institutional arrangement but also the process by which a community arrives at that arrangement or does not) State is self-determining even if its citizens struggle and fail to establish free institutions (deprived of this if they are established by an intrusive neighbor, right of people to become free by their own efforts, survival the fittest) Political freedom depends upon the existence of individual virtue Mill's argument seems to make utilitarian calculation unnecessary (he believes that intervention necessarily fails due to liberty) Ban on boundary crossing suspended in these instances: When a particular set of boundaries clearly contains two or more political communities, one of which is already engaged in a large-scale military struggle for independence, the the boundaries have already been crossed by armies of a foreign power, when the violation of human rights within, set of bounded is so terrible that it makes talk of community or self-determination seem cynical or irrelevant (enslavement or massacre) Mill's main argument: always act so as to recognize and uphold communal autonomy Great Britain should have intervened in defense of the Hungarian Revolution

Walzer Civil War

Once a community is effectively divided then foreign powers can hardly serve the cause of self-determination by acting militarily within its borders As soon as one outside power violates the norms of neutrality and non-intervention, the way is open for other powers to do so U.S involvement in Vietnam: assistance to a legitimate government (treaty obligations) and as a counter-intervention response to covert military moves by the North Vietnamese regime A government that receives economic and technical aid, military supply, strategic and tactical advice, and is still unable to reduce its subjects to obedience is clearly an illegitimate government Counter-intervention is a balancing act (goal of intervention is not to win the war)

Rawls

One aim of essay is to stretch (in small space) how the law of peoples may be developed out of liberal ideas of justice similar to but more general than the idea I called justice as fairness Another aim is to set out the bearing of political liberalism once a liberal political conception of justice is extended to the law of peoples Citizens in liberal societies should respect other persons' comprehensive religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines and should respect other societies organized by comprehensive doctrines (as long as their political and social institutions meet certain conditions that lead societies to adhere to a reasonable law of the peoples) What are the reasonable limits of tolerations to be drawn? Non-liberal societies will except the same well-ordered law of peoples as liberal societies do (well-ordered being peaceful and not expansiveness, non-liberal being a hierarchical society) Any society must honor basic human rights (need to be liberal to do so)

Violence and Liberation

Only when a slave turns on his master and kills him will be become a free human being Sartre can't think all europeans will do in killing one freeing one (the children aren't the oppressors) There are historical moments when armed struggle is necessary for the sake of freedom but if dignity and self-respect are to be the outcome of struggle it can't consist of terrorist attacks on children Hatred, fear, and the lust for domination are the psychological marks of oppressed and oppressor alike and their acting out on either side can be said to be radically determined Mark of revolutionary struggle against oppression isn't rage and random violence but restraint and self-control The revolutionary reveals his freedom in the same way he earns it by directly confronting his enemies and refraining from attacks on anyone else (not just save lives from save themselves from killing innocents) Political code is intrinsically connected to psychological liberation Soldiers most clearly assert their freedom when they obey the moral law When caught in a bloody struggle it is key to keep self-respect

Notes 1/17/20

Rawls A theory of justice: work through justice is fairness Original position: self-interest (know nothing of self) Veil of ignorance [liberal]ism (freedom, western) Justice as fairness: liberty principle (common application to civil/political rights given to all, freedom) and equality principle (difference principle, inequality is just if it compensates everyone and advantages least well off, Liberalism/new deal), Tony vs Stephen Curries (calories, can watch amazing athlete), when inequities, just societies can still have inequality Defensive position Can't step up universal standards to apply to all societies How to protect ourselves from "bad cards" (lottery ticket), create justice as fairness, protected from bad cards due to rights (liberty and equality principles) Everyone benefits even if it isn't at equal levels Plato republic point: make perfect society We all have a right to have a seat at the table Law of nations: political/lawful laws (international laws) Law of peoples: family of political concepts Kant: federation of republican (liberal) states Liberalism is tolerant (tolerate differences) Can't just accept anything Human rights are universal, constitutional rights apply to a specific society Agrees with Kant, don't interfere with constitutions of other states Not just war doctrine (form peace between transnational societies) Need to go to war: self-defense and human rights are being violated (Nazis) Who goes to war: United Nations

Gandhi Notes

Satyagrahi enjoys a sense of freedom that other's can't due to being a truly fearless person (once one's mind is free of fear he will not become another slave, attitude of the mind) A society can be as wrong as a government What is won by force can be retained by force alone (same for gained by love can be retained by love) Conquer with love Perfect state reach only when mind, body, and speech are in perfect coordination (case of immense mental struggle) I am not incapable of anger Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong (for the weak hypocrisy) Fear and love are opposite terms (love is giving away without know what you will get back, love gains mastery over all feelings) Truth and nonviolence are faces of the same coin No greater loss in men than if forceable resistance is offered (bravery consists in dying not killing) No defeat in nonviolent resistance Law of love rules mankind (had violence ruled us we would have been extinct long ago) Happy that love is the supreme and only law of life Satigraha: massive political resistance (opposite is passive conforming, like Thoreau not resisting by trying to get out of state, could be due to fearless resistance of not paying taxes and going to jail) If one were to die resisting, braver to die unarmed MLK satigraha: love force or truth force, Gandhi thinks love is stronger Violence in easier, need to be trained to be nonviolent

Double Effect

Second principle of the war convention is that noncombatants can't be attacked at any time Noncombatants are often endangered not because anyone sets out to attack them but because of their proximity to a battle that is being fought against someone else Soldier in firing at the enemy forces that he will shoot some civilians that are nearby It is permitted to act likely to have evil consequences provided the following conditions hold: the act is good in itself or at least indifferent which means a legitimate act of war, the direct effect is morally acceptable the destruction of military supplies for example of killing of enemy soldiers, the intention of the actor is good he aims at the actable effect the evil is not one of his ends nor is it a means to his ends, and the good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for allowing the evil effect it must be justifiable under Sidgwick proportionality rule Double effect is defensible if outcomes are the product of a double intention: the good be achieved and the forceable evil be reduced as far as possible No one can be killed for trivial purposes If saving civilian lives mean risking solider's lives then risk must be accepted Degree of risk that is permissible is going to vary with the nature of the target Bombing of occupied France and the Vemork raid Strategists and planners will for reasons of their own weigh the importance of their target against the importance of their soldiers' lives (must risk soldiers before civilians) Soldiers have direct obligations to the civilians they leave behind Structure of rights stand independently of political allegiance When judging the unintended killing of civilians we need to know how those civilians came to be in a battle zone in the first place (another way of asking who put them at risk and what positive effects were made to save them)

Extension to Hierarchical Societies

Shared law of wellness ordered peoples, both liberal and hierarchal, specifies the content of ideal theory Three requirements of hierarchal regime: must be peaceful and gain its legitimate aims through diplomacy/trade/other forms of peace, system of law imposes moral duties and obligations for people in its territory and law be guided by a common good conception of justice and there must be a sincere and not unreasonable belief on the part of the judges and officials that administer the legal order that they are following a common idea of justice, and people have certain minimum rights to means of subsistence/security/liberty/personal property Agreement on the law of peoples ensuring human rights is not an agreement only liberal societies can make (the parties care about the good of society, don't try to extend their religious and philosophical doctrines to other states by war of aggression) Difficulty of an all-inclusive or global original position is that the use of liberal ideas is more troublesome Parties are guided by appropriate reasons as specified by a veil of ignorance (reasonable societies will agree on obligations and duties)

Quiz notes 1/21

Sigwick utilitarian argument on how soldiers can fight justly: military necessity and proportionality Walzer's main claim that rape of Italian women is unlawful and country to the war convention: rape is a crime in was as in peace because it violates the rights of those attacked Walzer's idea of a sad irony about war: soldiers give up their individual rights in order to protect the collective rights of their country Doenitz's Laconia order: an order by the admiral stating that attempts to rescue crews of sunken ships should cease as a result of Allied attacks on German rescuers One of the most important issues in just war thinking is the issue of double effect, definition of double effect: a way of reconciling the absolute prohibition against attacking noncombatants with the legitimate conduct of military activity Walzer's idea that during guerrilla wars against occupiers: resistance to occupation is legitimate and the punishment of resistance is legitimate Walzer states something surprising about wars fought against guerrillas who have the backing of the population: jus as bellum and jus in bello arguments come together, the war cannot and should not be won Distinguishes terrorism from revolutionary tactics according to Walzer: the code of honor of the revolutionaries For Walzer the bombing of the milk bar in the Battle of Algiers was not legitimate within the war convention

Notes 1/21

Sigwicks excessive harm: military necessity, proportionality, necessary mischief Purpose of militarism argument: cases where victory is important to over to break the rules, general endorsement of war convention, not prolonging conflict Required for fighting: discipline/calculation, intelligent military strategy Mao's rules fit the war convention Walzer's reject of sigiwcks: emphasizing human rights, peace time rights should be maintained in war, rights on a larger scale, legitimate acts of war doesn't violate rights of opposing people Laconia order: morally problematic, sink on sight, don't help crew, illegitimate submarine attacks, military necessity, war crimes, regain right to life, call off assistance out of fear of an attack Necessity of double effect in just war doctrine: recognize their rights, laws of war don't talk about that, increase responsibility of soldiers Proportionality vs due care, due care is relative value/urgency, civilians are individuals, cost can still outweigh even with high care (Richards calling into the cellars) Morally legitimate to resist foreign occupation: moral commitment to defend homeland, consent Punishment legitimate: moral realities of war, war is over, disrupting peace Supporters vs nonsupports, loyal vs disloyal, aggressor war, no difference between guerrillas and civilians politically, leave or don't leave Don't attack children, weaker power can't win if only attack combatants, Satre: thinks one counts for another Occupation isn't fun Gandhi's nonviolent response to British occupation of India (lacking in moral code, same as France)

The Political Code

Terrorism is most often used to describe revolutionary violence (only really appeared after WWII, purpose is to destroy the moral of a nation or a claim to undercut its solidarity, its method is the random murder of innocent people) Randomness is crucial to terrorist activity In war terrorism is a way to avoid engagement with the enemy army (indirect approach, matter of professional pride as it is moral judgement) Aristotle: first aim and end of tyrants is to break the spirit of their subjects (destruction of civilian morale) Feature of conventional war Camus: even in destruction there's a right and wrong way, there are limits (not bombing man with children on his lap) IRA campaign carefully planned to avoid killing innocent bystanders (man getting lost and abandoning the bike) Assassins not killing constable (moral distinction) Terrorists not protected by war convention and positive international law We judge the assassin by his victim Moral difference between aiming at particular people because of the things they have done or are doing and aiming at whole groups of people indiscriminately because of who they are (victims share what they can't avoid: collective identity) The threatening character of the soldiers activities is a matter of fact but the unjust or oppressive character of official's activities is a matter of political judgement (political code hasn't attained the same status as the war convention) Assassins can't claim rights Terrorism may foreshadow genocide but assassination doesn't Most political militants don't regard themselves as assassins at all but rather as executioners (vigilante justice, vigilantes in the same sense apply conventional conceptions of criminality though in a rough and ready way, politicians guilty of crimes against the people) Assassination is most often a vile political as vigilante justice is more often a bad kind of law enforcement (agents usually gangsters and sometimes madmen in political dress) Just assassinations are possible Terrorism is the deliberate violation of the norms of the political code (ordinary citizens are killed and no defense is or could be offered, killed simply to deliver a message of fear to others like themselves) In war terrorism is associated with the dead for unconditional surrender and tends to rule out any sort of compromise settlement Terror is the totalitarian form of war and politics Terrorists kill anybody Terrorism is the only means and so it is the ordinary means of destroying oppressive regimes and founding new nations (false ideas)

Extension to Liberal Societies

These ideas of justice contain three elements: list of certain basic rights and liberties and opportunities (familiar from constitutional democratic regimes), his priority for these fundamental freedoms especially with respect to claims of the general good and of perfectionistic values, measure assuring all citizens adequate More general liberal ideas lack the three egalitarian features: the fair value of political liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle First stage of extension is called ideal of strict compliance (to make this possible we assume there are only two well ordered societies being liberal and hierarchical) Second stage is of non ideal theories (steps of noncompliance theory and unfavorable conditions) Before beginning extensions one must make sure that the original position with the vail of ignorance is a device of representation for the case of liberal societies Three essential conditions: original position represents the parties fairly, it represents them as rational, and it represents them as deciding between viable principle by appropriate reasons When the original position is used to extend a liberal conception to the law of peoples it is a device of representation because it models what we would regard as fair conditions Outcome for working out the law of peoples for liberal democratic societies will only be the adoption of certain familiar principles of justice and will allow for various forms of cooperative association among democratic peoples and not for a world state Agrees with Kant (world government would be a global despotism or a fragile empire torn by civil strife as various regions and peoples try to gain their political autonomy) Principles of justice between free and democratic peoples: people are free and independent and their freedom and independence is to be respects by other peoples, peoples are equal and parties to their own agreements, peoples have the right of self-defense but no right to war, peoples are to observe a duty of nonintervention, peoples are to observe treaties and undertakings, peoples are to observe certain specified restrictions on the conduct of war (assumed in self-defense), peoples are to honor human rights An important role of peoples government is to be the representative and effective agent of a people as they take responsibility for their territory, population, environmental integrity, and capacity to sustain them Boundaries of peoples are historically the outcome of violence and aggression Further conditions of a political society: should be stable (members increasingly over time accept its principles and judgements, and equal distribution of fortune) The condition of stability would be satisfied in a society of just, democratic people

The Rights of Guerrilla Fighters

They invite their enemies to attack civilians Guerrilla war is "peoples war" Guerrillas mobilize only a small part of the population at first then rely on the counter-attacks of the enemy to mobilize the rest Mao's eight points for attention: speak politely, pay fairly for what you buy, return everything you borrow, pay for anything you damage, do no hit or swear at people, don't damage crops, don't take liberties with women, and don't ill-treat captives Soldiers must feel safe among civilians if civilians are ever to be safe from soldiers Wearing uniforms enhances their sense of membership and solidarity Guerrillas are fish among other fish (accept paradigm) In order to be eligible for war rights of soldiers they must wear a fixed distinctive sign visible at a distance and must carry their arms openly Killing of soldiers by disguised potato farmers was more assassination than war (not just surprise but degree of deceit) They don't have war rights and know the risks of their actions (they don't just fight as citizens but among citizens) Dependence on civilians is direct (fighting out of their homes) Enemies say they rely on fear to get the support or at least silence the villagers (violence may explain the cooperation of a few individuals but not of a whole social class) If guerrillas win then they had immense political support from the people Guerrilla war makes for forced intimacies Soldiers are supposed to protect the civilians sho stand behind them guerrillas are protected by the civilians among whom they stand Soldiers acquire war rights not as individual warriors but as political instruments (guerrillas don't get war rights is they are not supported by the people) Enemies must weigh the moral significance of the popular support the guerrillas both enjoy and exploit

Ruling on Targeted Killings

This is conflict is of an international character (international armed conflict), the law that applies to the armed conflict between Israel and the terrorist organizations is the international law of armed conflicts, it is not an internal state conflict that is subject to the rules of law-enforcement, it is not a conflict of a mixed character A fundamental principle of the customary international law of armed conflict is the principle of distinction, it distinguishes between combatants and civilians, combatants are, in principle, legitimate targets for military attack The Supreme Court decided that members of the terrorist organizations are not combatants, they do not fulfill the conditions for combatants under international law, they do not comply with the international laws of war, members of terrorist organizations have the status of civilians, the protection accorded by international law to civilians does not apply at the time during which civilians take direct part in hostilities A civilian who takes direct part in hostilities does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct part in hostilities he does not enjoy the protections granted to a civilian, he is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject, without enjoying the rights of a combatant, e.g. those granted to a prisoner of war Hostilities are acts which are intended to harm the army or civilians A civilian bearing arms (openly or concealed) who is on his way to the place where he will use them, or is using arms, or is on his way back from such a place, is a civilian taking a direct part in hostilities One is not to be attacked for the hostilities which he committed in the past Well based, strong and convincing information is needed before categorizing a civilian as falling into one of the discussed categories A civilian taking a direct part in hostilities cannot be attacked if a less harmful means can be employed (he does not relinquish his human rights, among the military means one must choose the means which least infringes upon the humans rights of the harmed person) After an attack on a civilian suspected of taking an active part in hostilities, a thorough investigation regarding the precision of the identification of the target and the circumstances of the attack upon him is to be performed Every effort must be made to minimize harm to innocent civilians Harm to innocent civilians caused during military attacks (collateral damage) must be proportional We must balance security needs and human rights Not every efficient means is also legal The ends do not justify the means It is decided that it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is prohibited according to customary international law, just as it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is permissible according to customary international law The law of targeted killing is determined in the customary international law

MLK tells us that he was influenced by Thoreau, Gandhi, and Niebuhr. How does he combine these seemingly opposed positions on violence?

Thoreau: refusing to cooperate with an evil system Thought that ethics of Jesus was talking about individual conflicts (after reading Ghandi, he changed his mind) For Ghandi love is a potent instrument for social and collective transformation (not nonresistance by nonviolent resistance) Neibuhr: no intrinsic moral difference between violent and nonviolent resistance (aware of the complexity of human motives and of the relation between morality and power, reminder of sin on every level of human existence)

What place does the 'war convention' have in this conflict?

Treating other civilians as innocents The innocent civilians still have their rights and are not treated as such (granted it is very difficult to find the guerrilla fighters within the civilian population and the only way to find them all is to talk to the civilians, torture and murder of innocents is not ok) Torture is almost never ok (I can't really think of a situation that it would be ok)

MLK Notes

Twin of racial injustice was economic injustice (poor whites exploited as much as the blacks) Rauschenbusch: insisted that the gospel dealt with the whole man (not just should but body not just spiritual well-being but material well-being, a religion that ends with the individual ends) Communism is not ok with god (disagreed with ethical realism, constructive ends can't give moral justification to destructive means, disagreed with political totalitarianism, depreciation of individual freedom, concern for social justice, protests against hardships of underprivileged) Capitalism has failed to see the truth in collective enterprise (fails to see that life is social and Marx failed to see that life is individual and personal) Thought that ethics of Jesus was talking about individual conflicts (after reading Ghandi, he changed his mind) For Ghandi love is a potent instrument for social and collective transformation (not nonresistance by nonviolent resistance) Neibuhr: no intrinsic moral difference between violent and nonviolent resistance (aware of the complexity of human motives and of the relation between morality and power, reminder of sin on every level of human existence) Hegel: helped me see that growth comes through struggle Nonviolent resistance is one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their quest for social justice War, as horrible as it is, is better than surrendering to a totalitarian system (such as Nazi, Fascist, or communism) Wrote this during Cold War (1958) Can't totally agree with scientific arguments due to being religious Marx: history influenced by economic situations (economic situations lead to political action), defends capitalism against feudalism, materialistic is capitalism and communism (similar to Thoreau) Ethical relativism: not many things set in stone (hard to have shared ethics), commandments to follow (moral core leads to moral code, against ethical relativism, without moral code anything can be justified) Ideas of nonviolence not dependent on christianity (just being a good person, pacifism differs from Niebuhr by not no resistance but nonviolent resistance)

Walzer 10

War against civilians: sieges and blockades Siege is the oldest form of total war (its long history suggests that neither technological advance nor democratic revolution are the crucial factors pushing warfare beyond combatant population) When this happens soldier and civilians face the same threats In this kind of war once combat begins non-combatants are more likely to be killed (useless mouths)

Walzer Chapter 8

War means and the importance of fighting well Moral status of individual soldiers on both sides: they are led to fight by their loyalty to their own states and by their lawful obedience War is an activity that has no equivalent in a settled civil society The idea of necessity doesn't apply to criminal activity Aggression is also a criminal activity but the view of participants matters more (killing a combatant vs killing a noncombatant, no condemnation is fighting in accordance with rules of war)

If you had been Lt. Colonel Matheiu?

We are soldiers and it is our duty to win I don't know, it is almost impossible to find the guerrilla fighters and his way was effective but not moral (he did give people the option to turn themselves in and not be killed but they would be tortured and eventually hanged if they went in)

Niebuhr

Why the Christian church is not pacifist Christianity is not a new law but a law of love Good news of the gospel is that there is a resource of divine mercy which is able to overcome a contradiction within our souls, which we can't overcome ourselves (love ourselves more than our neighbor) Grace conceived as justification (pardon rather than power) Perfect and unselfish life in Kingdom of God: disapproving the political task and free the individuals all responsibility of social justice (not simply heresy) Religious faiths are principles of interpretation which we use to organize our experience Only reason we don't love each other fully is because the law of love has not been preached persuasively enough There is a fairly easy way out of the human situation of "self-alienation" Faith in man comes from belief that man is essentially good and some level of its being Ethic of Jesus is an absolute and uncompromising ethic (some use it to justify their position, ethic of non-violent resistance not non-resistance, Gregg: Jesus not yet mastered non-violence) Tension between be not anxious and love thy neighbor, tension between tyranny and anarchy, tension between righteousness and mercy Be not anxious is the tragedy of man who is dependent on god but seeks to make himself independent and self-sufficing Tyranny is not war, it is peace but not the kind of Kingdom of God (one will dominating over another) Destruction will come to those that are unaware (overt destruction is a vivid portrayal of the constant factor of sin in human life) Gospel deals with the fact that men violate the law of love Love is a principle of indiscriminate criticism between forms of justice Pacifists believe that justice is never free from vindictiveness (shouldn't contest a foe), but this leaves out the idea that the foe might subject us to a worse vindictiveness Our sins are partly due to sins committed against those we contend Love is a principle of discriminate criticism between various forms of community and various attempts at justice Women didn't gain justice from men until they secured sufficient economic power to challenge male autocracy There is not a perfectly adequate method of preventing either anarchy or tyranny If we don't make discriminative judgements between social systems we weaken the resolution to defend and expand civilization We must prove our guiltlessness in order to be able to act or refuse to act because we can't achieve guiltlessness Self-righteousness or inaction are the alternatives of secular moralism Accept warfare as normative but respect the pacifists