Ethics and War in the 21st Century

Coker, Christopher

doi:10.4324/9780203930892

Cited by 27 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In studying these and related questions, I hope that researchers will be as inventive and pluralistic in their methodological approaches to the moral psychology of war as moral psychology has been in general by employing self-report surveys, image stimuli, video stimuli, experimental manipulations and economic games, brain imaging, big data, and linguistic analysis. As with morality in general, comparisons among these methods and the findings they yield will no doubt reveal some disagreement—among individuals, groups, nations, or historical eras—as to what the most relevant values and most inviolable rules of war are (Coker, 2008). In addition, there will be occasional disagreement among researchers about the best way to describe and explain this context-bound morality.…”

Section: Judgments Of the Conduct Of War: Two Experimental Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Morality of War: A Review and Research Agenda

Watkins

2020

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is judged as morally right and wrong in war? I argue that despite many decades of research on moral psychology and the psychology of intergroup conflict, social psychology does not yet have a good answer to this question. However, it is a question of great importance because its answer has implications for decision-making in war, public policy, and international law. I therefore suggest a new way for psychology researchers to study the morality of war that combines the strengths of philosophical just-war theory with experimental techniques and theories developed for the psychological study of morality more generally. This novel approach has already begun to elucidate the moral judgments third-party observers make in war, and I demonstrate that these early findings have important implications for moral psychology, just-war theory, and the understanding of the morality of war.

show abstract

Section: Judgments Of the Conduct Of War: Two Experimental Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Morality of War: A Review and Research Agenda

Watkins

2020

Perspect Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is the ‘sci-tech’ lens, which has been advanced by US military engagements since the Vietnam War. Beginning with that particular conflict, ‘formal and mechanical modelling provided the categories and techniques by which the Americans understood themselves and the enemy’ (Coker, 2008: 38). The sci-tech lens draws on different fields of knowledge and practice, ranging from mathematical models, systems analysis, gaming and cybernetics, using these to inform war strategy at the most elite of levels.…”

Section: Techno-subjectivity In Contemporary Rationales For Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sci-tech lens draws on different fields of knowledge and practice, ranging from mathematical models, systems analysis, gaming and cybernetics, using these to inform war strategy at the most elite of levels. Such an approach to war truncates ‘experiential and situated knowledge’, along with everything else that cannot be rendered in quantifiable or calculative terms (Coker, 2008: 40). The upshot is a prioritisation and privileging of the quantifiable aspect in and of war.…”

Section: Techno-subjectivity In Contemporary Rationales For Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology and moral vacuums in just war theorising

Schwarz

2018

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our contemporary condition is deeply infused with scientific-technological rationales.These influence and shape our ethical reasoning on war, including the moral status of civilians and the moral choices available to us. In this article, I discuss how technology shapes and directs the moral choices available to us by setting parameters for moral deliberation. I argue that technology is an actant of moral significance to just war thinking, yet this is often overlooked in attempts to assess who is liable to harm in war and to what extent. This omission produces an undue deference to technological authority, reducing combatants, civilians, and scenarios to data points.If we are to develop a maximally restrictive framework for harming civilians in war, which I think should be a goal of just war thinking, then it is imperative that the scientific-technological dimension of contemporary war is given due attention.

show abstract

“…Despite this, the Nordic battle group centered on a combat masculinity in its information and recruitment campaigns. Combat masculinity is a kind of model of admired masculine conduct while it may be far from the real experiences of enlisted men, or that of generals and high commanders, it carries masculine ideals, fantasies, and desires and has historic roots (Coker 2007(Coker , 2008. Combat masculinity is deeply embedded in military organizations and seen as necessary to it, and also in the EUMS, according to Director General of EUMS David Leakey: ''the warrior ethos needs to be sustained.…”

Section: Combat Masculinity and The Battle Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexed Bodies and Military Masculinities

Kronsell

2015

Men and Masculinities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the European Union (EU)'s Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) through a framework based on feminist institutional theory that highlights the durability in the dynamics of gender relations. Path dependency based on historic features of military institutions-a strict sex division based on ''gender war roles''-has influenced the development of different CSDP bodies. The CSDP is sexed because male bodies dominate the organizations studied, yet this remains invisible through normalization. A dominant EU hierarchical military masculinity is institutionalized in the EU's Military Committee, combat heterosexual masculinity in the Battle groups, and EU protector masculinity in the EU Training missions. The CSDP embodies different types of military masculinities; the relations between them are important for the reproduction of the gender order through a gendered logic of appropriateness. Yet, this too is invisible as part of the informal aspects of organizations. While women's bodies are written out of the CSDP, the construction of femininity in relation to the protector/protected binary is central to it. Two protected femininities are read in the texts. The vulnerable femininity of women in conflict areas is important for how the CSDP understands itself in relation to gender mainstreaming. In relation to the vulnerable femininity, CSDP constructs an EU protector masculinity, in turn, set against an aggressive violent masculinity in the Downloaded from areas where missions are deployed. Women's bodies are absent from the CSDP and they lack agency but are nevertheless associated with a protected femininity.

show abstract

Ethics and War in the 21st Century

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

The Morality of War: A Review and Research Agenda

The Morality of War: A Review and Research Agenda

Technology and moral vacuums in just war theorising

Sexed Bodies and Military Masculinities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About