Assuming Risk: A Critical Analysis of a Soldier's Duty to Prevent Collateral Casualties

Abbate, Cheryl

doi:10.1080/15027570.2014.910370

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 10 For instance, Hurka (2005) suggests that it is permissible to somewhat discount foreseen harm to enemy noncombatants compared to harm to friendly or neutral non-combatants. This means that when faced with the choice between foreseeably harming 100 friendly non-combatants and foreseeably harming 200 enemy noncombatants, it is permissible to pursue the latter course of action (see also Abbate 2014;Kamm 2005;Bazargan-Forward 2018). However, there is no widespread agreement on to what extent, if at all, enemy non-combatant lives can be discounted (for the argument that there is no such general permission to discount harm to enemy non-combatants, see, for instance, McMahan 2010 andVan Goozen 2018).…”

Section: : Proportionality and Necessity Ad Bellum And In Bellomentioning

confidence: 99%

Counting Animals in War

Milburn¹,

Goozen²

2021

Social Theory and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

War is harmful to animals, but few have considered how such harm should affect assessments of the justice of military actions. In this article, we propose a way in which concern for animals can be included within the just-war framework, with a focus on necessity and proportionality. We argue that counting animals in war will not make just-war theory excessively demanding, but it will make just-war theory more humane. By showing how animals can be included in our proportionality and necessity assessments, we provide a crucial first step towards developing an animal-inclusive account of just-war theory.

show abstract