Partiality and Weighing Harm to Non-Combatants

Author: Lefkowitz, David

Source: Journal of Moral Philosophy, Volume 6, Number 3, 2009 , pp. 298-316(19)

Publisher: BRILL

Key:

- Free Content

- New Content

- Subscribed Content

- Free Trial Content

Abstract:

The author contests the claim made independently by F.M. Kamm and Thomas Hurka that combatants ought to assign greater weight to collateral harm done to their compatriot noncombatants then they assign to collateral harm done to enemy non-combatants. Two arguments by analogy offered in support of such partiality, one of which appeals to permissible self/other asymmetry in cases of harming the few to save the many, and the second of which appeals to parents' justifiable partiality to their children, are found wanting. The author also rebuts Kamm's argument that combatants should assign greater weight to collateral harm done to neutrals than to compatriot non-combatants. However, he contends that in some cases a neutral state's right to sovereignty may entail that a combatant ought to choose the act that will collaterally kill a greater number of compatriot non-combatants over one that involves collaterally killing a lesser number of neutrals.

Keywords: COLLATERAL DAMAGE; JUST WAR; NON-COMBATANTS; PARTIALITY; SOVEREIGNTY

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1163/174552409X433409

The full text electronic article is available for purchase. You will be able to download the full text electronic article after payment.

$25.00 plus tax Refund Policy