Search

[Review Essay: Larry May, War Crimes and Just War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), xi + 343 pp.] Introduction War Crimes and Just War is the second book of Larry [...]

Political interaction among citizens who hold opposing moral views commonly requires reaching beyond toleration, toward actual co-operation with policies one opposes. On the more personal level, however, regarding (e.g.) interactions between healthcare providers and patients, several authors emphasise the importance of preserving integrity. But those who oppose any 'complicity in evil' often wrongly conflate instances in which the other's position is (and should be) totally rejected with instances of legitimate, although deep, disagreement. Starting with a striking example from the context of a particular tradition, I argue generally that in the latter sort of disagreements, talk of 'complicity' should be largely replaced with a more co-operative moral stance, grounded in a pluralistic framework. Co-operation Despite Disagreement (CDD) should be sought either for institutional reasons--akin to the political--or for relational reasons. CDD involves sharing another's perspective and sometimes calls for adopting another's moral judgements in preference to one's own. I seek to identify some of the conditions and circumstances that would justify such a shift, particularly in scenarios involving assistance, such as physicianassisted suicide (PAS) or the role of an anaesthesiologist in abortion. This discussion is meant to provide examples of the kind of second-order reasons appropriate for determining the terms for CDD--in distinction from first-order considerations (e.g., the much-contested 'active/passive'distinction) which are likely to be the subject of the initial disagreement and hence cannot serve to resolve it.

The religious legitimacy of medical practice was an issue of serious contention amongst medieval Jewish scholars. For Nahmanides, altering the patient's fate through manipulation of natural causality amounts to circumventing divine judgment. For Maimonides, however, human accomplishment is part of God's providential design; this view generally prevails in contemporary Jewish bioethics. But the doctrine of deligitimizing human intervention continues, even while unacknowledged, to underlie certain contemporary positions. These include arguments within Jewish bioethics about end-of-life decisions, which are therefore imbued with inconsistencies. It is suggested that, given the overall endorsement of modern medicine, the Nahmanidean approach must be explicitly confronted. Key Words: euthanasia, Jewish bioethics, Nahmanides, naturalism, nature, Maimonides, providence

It by no means detracts from this work's philosophical value--nor from the interest it holds throughout--to say that its best part may be the Utopian short story placed at its [...]

The killing of soldiers in war is justified only when considering the collective aspect of the action and the concept of self-defense. Considering soldiers as individuals, innocent or guilty, renders the act immoral, as they are not responsible for the war and consequently do not deserve to be killed. The concept of self-defense is justified as the act of killing is done to protect oneself from the aggressor. War must be viewed from these two standards, and a war ethic that defines killing in terms of its acceptability must be formulated.

The Jewish Political Tradition, Volume I: Authority. Edited by Michael Walzer, Menachem Lorberbaum, Noam J. Zohar and Yair Lorberbaum. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000, 578 pp., $35.00. [...]