Search

An essay about the difference in the definition and assessment of intention related to the doctrine of double effect (DDE) is presented. It references the article "Précis: The Morality and Law of War," by Jeff McMahan, published within the issue. The essay's author expresses his belief that the dichotomy between the individualist perspective and collectivist approaches described by McMahan should be rejected. He emphasizes that a collectivist perspective to moral judgments of warfare is necessary and valuable.

Examines the arguments of Judith Jarvis Thomson, who contends that self-defense justifies killing innocent threats but not innocent bystanders, even if the latter obstruct one's ability to flee from a lethal threat. Analysis of the justifications of the war ethic; Discussion on the moral force of noncombatant immunity; Elaboration on the unconditional condemnation of terrorism.

Argues for an alternative view of individual self-defense which doesn't condone elimination of blameless people. Undercutting of the attempt to justify the war ethic in terms of individual mortality; Alternative moral analysis of the war ethic; Compromise between individualist and collectivist views of human reality; Moral sanctions for defensive war and private self-defense; More.

The author presents a dialogue between Western moral philosophy and rabbinic Judaism concerning the issue whether a war can be morally optional or not. The discussion between the two disciplines were produced through translation and the bridging of linguistic gaps and normative idioms. The author focuses on the basic concepts concerning the waging of war, browsing through the Western's distinction of "just" and "unjust" wars and the rabbinic's distinction between "obligatory" and "optional" wars. Moreover, the dialogue between these traditions provides a constructive discussion, recommending refinements and modifications.