how can Kantian ethics defend the case for killing in self-defence
it can be viewed as treating people the way they have decided people may be treated
who uses DDe to justify killing in self-defence
Aquinas
Objections to DDE
Jonathan Glover:
- difficult to draw the line between intended and foreseen consequences
e. g. political protest - throwing a bomb at the crowd - was the intention to kill or to protest - hard to distinguish between acts and the consequences
e. g. drinking someone else’s water - was the act drinking or stealing?
Norman
respect for life sets up a strong moral presumption against war - utilitarian calculus can’t be used to justify war
Augustine
‘peace should be the object of your desire; war should only be waged as a necessity’
Aquinas
‘it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent’
Wink
‘it is a satanic temptation to die with clean hands and a dirty heart’
Rene Girard
we learn from others through imitation, once violence is installed in a community, it cannot burn itself out
Niehbuhr’s criticisms of pacifism
- naive about how re-formable human nature is
- Can NT be extended to apply to states? NT offers no guidance about inter-group behaviour
- pacifism is afraid of power, but christians must use power to promote justice and restrain evil
1983 Pastoral letter
‘the lives of innocent persons may never be taken directly, regardless of the purpose alleged for doing so’
why is it hard to draw the line between the innocent and the guilty?
why are taxpayers more innocent than a leader? bystanders and funders
Jus in bello cannot be independent of jus ad bellum because ?
an act of war cannot be justified in the absence of a just aim
Holmes
‘if there weren’t conditions to justify war, wars wouldn’t take place’
- ->arguably just war theory perpetuates outbreak of war
- ->not helped by the conditions being rather subjective
jus ad bellum
justifying going to war
jus in bello
justice of conduct during war
