How Many Ways Are There to Think Morally about War

Bibliographic Data

ID20511697
AuthorsJohn Howard Yoder
Year1994
Volume11
Issue1
Pages83-83
Publication date1994-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Law and Religion (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0748-0814 • E-ISSN: 2163-3088
PublisherCambridge University Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2307/1051625
OpenAlexW2324043172
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited11

In both political science and ethics, interpreters of the meaning of war have learned to use typologies to separate one mode of evaluation from another. As a result of this diversity in moral evaluations of war, authors have partly talked past each other, with all good faith accusing each another of confused categories. There has not been an agreed upon definitional base-line for just war theories “out there,” which would permit just war theorists to judge other theories and communicate with each other.I propose to define more carefully the operative terms and kinds of argument used in just war theory, to assist communication on these topics. If we fail to clarify the variety of meanings and arguments, the result is imprecision and confusion. Our need is for a more precise understanding of the diversity of the modes of moral reasoning on just war. By surveying recent developments and usage in the field, this article will make it possible for just war scholars to engage each other using a more adequate, more nuanced set of types. While these types are not identical with current dominant usage, they are reconcilable with its main lines and more useful as instruments of interpretation than the simpler systems

Epistemology · Interpreter · Just war theory · Linguistics · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Spanish Civil War · Computer Science · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Law · Philosophy · Torture, Ethics, and Law · War, Ethics, and Justification · Artificial Intelligence

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub