Noam Zohar

Much recent debate about the morality of conduct in warfare has focused on the question of unintended but foreseen civilian casualties. Following Walzer’s crucial revision of the Doctrine of Double Effect, the question is often formulated as ‘Do soldiers have a duty to incur risk in order to protect the lives of noncombatants?’ but this prevalent formulation is highly misleading and morally corrosive, supporting a stance dubbed ‘Soldiers’ Safety First’. The chapter begins by contrasting two scenarios: Humanitarian Aid and Free-Fire Zone; speaking of ‘protecting civilian lives’ is appropriate to the first, but confusing and improper with regard to the second. Declaring a free-fire zone where the shooting is likely to kill noncombatants is immoral because the soldiers enhance their own safety by illicit killing—not by any failure to protect. The chapter examines other types of combat scenarios, including classical ‘Proximity’ cases (including the permission to harm ‘Human Shields’) and those of ‘Force Protection’, considering the ways that commanders and planners can and should approach these morally complex situations. This lends further support to the main conclusion: talk of ‘protecting opposing civilians’ is irrelevant for most combat situations. Thus the ‘Soldiers’ Safety First’ approach should be rejected. Individual soldiers as well as the army as an organization are required to continually balance the lives of our soldiers and the lives of noncombatants whom we are at risk of killing.

In this essay, I examine aspects of Walzer's exposition of The Jewish Political Tradition (=the title of a multi-volume work of which he is leading editor) as they intersect with his work on political theory more generally. The Jewish tradition seems to present a radical example of "anti-politics": of a people existing outside the political realm. This is due both to the historical fact of their long exile, and to the shadow cast upon human politics by the prophetic ideology of Divine Sovereignty. Despite their long-lasting lack of sovereignty, Jewish communities sustained a significant political life and a rich political discourse; this can serve to illustrate the primacy of the people's common life over the state, whose function is to support this life. As for divine sovereignty, it need not negate human political agency; instead, it can furnish – as in the case of the biblical prophets – the grounding for effective social criticism; though it is far from clear who, if anyone, is heir to the prophetic-critical mantle in post-biblical Judaism.

_The third of four volumes in a distinguished series, this volume includes chapters on the nature of the communal bond, marriage and family, welfare, taxation, government, and criminal justice_ The four-volume series on the Jewish political tradition that includes this volume seeks to connect the political thought of ancient Israel and the Diaspora with the emerging traditions of the modern Israeli state. The first two volumes dealt with authority and membership, respectively; this third volume, with Madeline Kochen as coeditor, deals with community, with chapters on the communal bond, marriage and family, welfare, taxation, government, and criminal justice.

The ArgumentTo describe the attitude of the Jewish tradition toward eugenic ideology and policies, it is necessary to examine classical sources from a contemporary perspective. In the heyday of eugenics, Rabbi Max Reichler (1916) enthusiastically endorsed its ideology, supporting his position with numerous traditional texts. Similar views of traditional teachings on “chosen people” and on the importance of lineage have a certain contemporary following as well. The paper argues, however, that these views involve a one-sided reading of the Jewish tradition and, particularly, the suppression of traditional critiques of lineage and of the notion of a “Jewish race.”

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 physician‐assisted 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. Keywords: euthanasia, Jewish bioethics, Nahmanides, naturalism, nature, Maimonides, providence CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?