Week 10: Just war theory and pacifism (March 11-15)

Monday, March 11

read the last paragraph before section 2, then sections 2 and 3. The rest is optional
Also, please fill in this survey Links to an external site. to help focus the discussion in class. We can't talk about all the principles in depth; the survey asks which ones you'd like us to be sure to discuss.
- Close the "sign in" popup if you can't scroll down. You don't need to give your name--you can just click "stay anonymous."
- Do this by Saturday, March 9 if you want to be sure Christina gets your answers in time to prep for class!

War Links to an external site., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, sections 3 and 4 on jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

For further reading, only if you are very interested!

Helen Frowe has a whole book on just war theory that is written clearly and discusses many of the questions raised in the encyclopedia articles above. It's available online through the UBC Library (have to be accessing the internet through UBC Secure wireless or a VPN to read the book online)--see the link below.
Frowe, H. (2016). The ethics of war and peace: An introduction (2nd ed). New York: Routledge.

Reader, S. (2000). Making pacifism plausible. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17(2), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00151 Links to an external site.

You can access this article through the Library Online Course Reserves page for this course.
In this article, there are a few main parts to her argument:
- Intro and section 1: Definitions of war, violence, etc. In these sections she also explains the "moral status of persons" (MSP) view.
- Section 2: Here she criticizes several aspects of war-ism (opposite of pacifism) based on MSP: internal/external relations, the creation of a war machine, and whether people can agree to be soldiers or we can require others to be soldiers.
- Section 3: On top of the arguments in section 2, she presents a new set of arguments here, supporting the claim that violence against others in war isn't justifiable based on MSP, even for soldiers battling other soldiers. For the latter case, the violence could be justified based on self-defense, but then it's not a justification for violence in *war*: it is instead "a mass of chaotic self-defense killing" that is little different from a "riot or bar-room brawl" and doesn't have anything to do with war as a relationship between states (p. 177).
- Section 4: Even if war can't be justified, she argues, some targeted violence against people in another state, e.g., for punishment or to prevent wrongs, might still be acceptable under her pacifist position.

There will be student-led discussions in discussion classes this week.

If you led a discussion in a small group during your discussion meeting this week, be sure to post your discussion summary by Monday, March 18 at 5pm.
Read materials for next week (see week 11)
You need to bring a draft outline of your second essay to your discussion class next week for peer review; start working on this! See second essay assignment (instructions posted when ready).
If you want, post on the discussion board for Singer to Held