-
10The Ethics of TerrorismIn Georg Meggle, Andreas Kemmerling & Mark Textor (eds.), Ethics of Terrorism & Counter-Terrorism, De Gruyter. pp. 215-224. 2004.
-
800I argue that rights-forfeiture by itself is no path to permissibility at all (even barring special circumstances), neither in the case of self-defense nor in the case of punishment. The limiting conditions of self-defense, for instance – necessity, proportionality (or no gross disproportionality), and the subjective element – are different in the context of forfeiture than in the context of justification (and might even be absent in the former context). In particular, I argue that a culpable agg…Read more
-
16Killing CiviliansIn Hew Strachan & Sibylle Scheipers (eds.), The Changing Character of War, Oxford University Press. pp. 381--393. 2011.
-
1205McMahan’s own example of a symmetrical defense case, namely his tactical bomber example, opens the door wide open for soldiers to defend their fellow-citizens (on grounds of their special obligations towards them) even if as part of this defense they target non-liable soldiers. So the soldiers on both sides would be permitted to kill each other and, given how McMahan defines “justification,” they would also be justified in doing so and hence not be liable. Thus, we arrive, against McMahan’s inte…Read more
-
154Debate: Jeff McMahan on the moral inequality of combatantsJournal of Political Philosophy 16 (2). 2008.No Abstract
-
16Zur Ethik des Krieges und des TerrorismusVerlag W. Kohlhammer. 2011.Wann ist ein Krieg gerecht? Wer ist "unschuldig", und wer ist unter welchen Umstanden ein legitimes Angriffsziel? Und was bedeutet das fur die Beurteilung von Terrorismus? Diese und andere hochaktuelle Fragen behandelt Uwe Steinhoff in seiner kritischen und provokativen Analyse auch im Ruckgriff auf aktuelle Beispiele wie den Nahostkonflikt und den "Krieg gegen den Terror". Der Leser erhalt einen profunden und prazisen Uberblick uber die philosophische Debatte als unentbehrliches Rustzeug fur di…Read more
-
666Against Pogge's 'Cosmopolitanism'Ratio 26 (3): 329-341. 2013.Thomas Pogge labels the idea that each person owes each other person equal respect and concern ‘ethical cosmopolitanism’ and correctly states that it is a ‘non-starter’. He offers as an allegedly more convincing cosmopolitan alternative his ‘social justice cosmopolitanism’. I shall argue that this alternative fails for pretty much the same reasons that ‘ethical cosmopolitanism’ fails. In addition, I will show that Pogge's definition of cosmopolitanism is misleading, since it actually applies to …Read more
-
632Torture — The Case for Dirty Harry and against Alan DershowitzJournal of Applied Philosophy 23 (3): 337-353. 2006.abstract Can torture be morally justified? I shall criticise arguments that have been adduced against torture and demonstrate that torture can be justified more easily than most philosophers dealing with the question are prepared to admit. It can be justified not only in ticking nuclear bomb cases but also in less spectacular ticking bomb cases and even in the so‐called Dirty Harry cases. There is no morally relevant difference between self‐defensive killing of a culpable aggressor and torturing…Read more
-
462A standard example of a justified aggressor is the tactical bomber who is about to destroy an ammunitions factory in a proportionate, justified military attack, full well knowing that an innocent civilian bystander will also be killed by his attack (“collateral damage”). Intuitively it seems hard to believe that the innocent bystander threatened by the tactical bomber is morally prohibited from killing him in self-defense. Yet, Stephen R. Shalom indeed endorses such a prohibition. I shall argue …Read more
-
696Over the years a few authors have argued that Rawls’s ideal theory of justice is useless for the real world. This criticism has been largely ignored by Rawlsians, but in the light of a recent accumulation of such criticisms, some authors (in particular Holly Lawford-Smith, A. John Simmons, Zofia Stemplowska and Laura Valentini) have tried to defend ideal theory. In this article I will recapitulate the precise problem with Rawls’s ideal theory, argue that some of Rawls’s defenders misconceive it,…Read more
-
931Rodin on Self-Defense and the "Myth" of National Self-Defense: A RefutationPhilosophia 41 (4): 1017-1036. 2013.David Rodin denies that defensive wars against unjust aggression can be justified if the unjust aggression limits itself, for example, to the annexation of territory, the robbery of resources or the restriction of political freedom, but would endanger the lives, bodily integrity or freedom from slavery of the citizens only if the unjustly attacked state actually resisted the aggression. I will argue that Rodin's position is not correct. First, Rodin's comments on the necessity condition and its …Read more
-
2How Can Terrorism Be Justified?In Igor Primoratz (ed.), Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Palgrave-macmillan. pp. 97--109. 2004.
-
815Is There a Duty to Militarily Intervene to Stop a Genocide?In Christian Neuhäuser & Christoph Schuck (eds.), Military Interventions: Considerations From Philosophy and Political Science, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. 2017.Is there is a moral obligation to militarily intervene in another state to stop a genocide from happening (if this can be done with proportionate force)? My answer is that under exceptional circumstances a state or even a non-state actor might have a duty to stop a genocide (for example if these actors have promised to do so), but under most circumstances there is no such obligation. To wit, “humanity,” states, collectives, and individuals do not have an obligation to make such promises in the f…Read more
-
1069What Is War—And Can a Lone Individual Wage One?International Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1): 133-150. 2009.Practically all modern definitions of war rule out that individuals can wage war. They conceive of war as a certain kind of conflict between groups. In fact, many definitions even restrict the term “war” to sustained armed conflicts between states. Instead of taking such definitions as points of departure, the article starts from scratch. I first explain what an explication of the concept of “war” should achieve. I then introduce the fundamental, and frequently overlooked, distinction between wa…Read more
-
346Jonathan Quong proposes the following “Stringency Principle” for proportionality in self-defense: “If a wrongful attacker threatens to violate a right with stringency level X, then the level of defensive force it is proportionate to impose on the attacker is equivalent to X.” I adduce a counter-example that shows that this principle is wrong. Furthermore, Quong assumes that what determines the stringency of a person’s right is exclusively the amount of force that one would have to avert from som…Read more
-
353The guerrilla strikes back: a comment on Yvonne ChiuDiametros 30 61-75. 2011.In a recent article Yvonne Chiu argues that nonuniformed combat is impermissible. However, her argument that by fighting without uniforms nonuniformed guerillas coerce civilians into participating in the armed conflict and thus into surrendering their immunity (their right not to be attacked) fails: there is no coercion, no participation, and no surrendering of immunity. Yet even if this argument of hers were correct, it would still not show that such “coercion” would amount to a rights infringe…Read more
-
1031Rights, Liability, and the Moral Equality of CombatantsThe Journal of Ethics 16 (4): 339-366. 2012.According to the dominant position in the just war tradition from Augustine to Anscombe and beyond, there is no "moral equality of combatants." That is, on the traditional view the combatants participating in a justified war may kill their enemy combatants participating in an unjustified war - but not vice versa (barring certain qualifications). I shall argue here, however, that in the large number of wars (and in practically all modern wars) where the combatants on the justified side violate th…Read more
-
386In a recent paper, McMahan argues that his ‘Responsibility Account’, according to which ‘the criterion of liability to attack in war is moral responsibility for an objectively unjustified threat of harm’, can meet the challenge of explaining why most combatants on the unjustified side of a war are liable to attack while most civilians (even on the unjustified side) are not. It should be added, however, that in the light of his rejection of the ‘moral equality of combatants’, McMahan would als…Read more
-
37On the Concept, Function, Scope, and Evaluation of Justification(s)Argumentation 14 (2): 79-105. 2000.
-
89Saba Bazargan proposes a novel “hybrid” justification for the killing of minimally responsible threats (MRTs). His account allegedly combines two elements, namely “the complex account of liability” and “the lesser-evil discounting view.” I argue that Bazargan’s conclusion that minimally responsible threats can sometimes be killed as well as certain other conclusions that Bazargan regards as a particular advantage of his hybrid account are single-handedly generated by one element of the “hybrid a…Read more
-
Die Relativität der Gültigkeit von BegründengenConceptus: Zeitschrift Fur Philosophie 28 (71): 239-250. 1994.
-
7Moral Ambiguities in the Bombing of Monte CassinoJournal of Military Ethics 4 (2): 142-143. 2005.
-
A Referate uber deutschsprachige Neuerscheinungen-Moralisch korrektes TotenPhilosophischer Literaturanzeiger 59 (3): 274. 2006.
-
55Truth vs. RortyPhilosophical Quarterly 47 (188): 358-361. 1997.In his article ‘Is Truth a Goal of Enquiry?’ Rorty claims that the difference between truth and justification makes no difference to practice. His argument for this is that assessment of truth and assessment of justification are the same activity. This argument is insufficient, for the difference to practice can be found elsewhere. I shall demonstrate that, and also show in which way this difference manifests itself in utility/risk calculations in which the risk is that a certain justified belie…Read more
Areas of Interest
Applied Ethics |
Normative Ethics |
Social and Political Philosophy |