The Ethics of War 10 forelesning Rights G

The Ethics of War 10. forelesning

Rights (G Rainbolt, Philosophy Compass 1 (2006) Varities of rights n Active rights n Passive rights Negative Positive n Institutional rights n Non-institutional rights Conventional Moral - Human rights

Hohfeldian relations n n n Correlative, logically equivalent Claims – duties Liberties – no-claims Powers – liabilities Immunities – disabilities

What is a right? n n n Interest theories (e. g. Raz) Choice theories (e. g. Hart) Performative claims (Feinberg) Advantage theory (Wellman) Rights as trumps (Dworkin)

Conflicts of rights External n Internal - Unavoidable transgression Permissible transgression The prima facie view (PF/ATC actual right) The Specification view (A has a right unless. . ) n

The status of rights n n n Special metaphysical status? Or A useful vocabulary? Norms for protecting persons

The obligation to die for the state (Walzer, Obligations 4) n n - A political obligation to die when the state commands, for its security or welfare The obligation is seen as: a function of the state’s foundation or the individual’s adherence; or a deduction from collectively affirmed or universally recognised ends of the state; or a necessary consequence of the citizen’s relation with the political community as a whole

Ex: Socrates’ obligation to die n n Because he has consented to obey the Laws Because he approves of the ends of the Athenian state And because his consent and approval has been publically expressed by his participation in the political community And to die willingly for that reason!

Political dying ”Can an individual citizen be obligated to make the safety of the state the motive of his voluntary death? ”

Hobbes: NO! n n The instinct of self-preservation =>right to resist The end of the state is individual life To die for the state is to contradict the very purpose of forming the state. Therefore, there can be no political obligation to fight or to die War invites subjects to protect their protection, but only up until that point

Exceptions/inconsistencies 1) Enlistment: The social contract vs ordinary contracts But the right to self-defence is inalienable, so how can it be given up in terms of a contract? 2) The state can only exist/survive if citizens are willing to die. (Cf. Hegel: ”Conscription is the foundation of any viable political entity”) Either a man obligates himself to risk his life when contracting to form a society or he contradicts himself. . The problem is that Hobbes contradicts himself…

Liberalism and ultimate obligation n n Minimalist (fear/joy) liberalism cannot account for ultimate obligation No liberalism can account for political dying? Ethical dying! Problem? : Liberal advantage that no one can be obligated to die for the state. But a good society might be the one worth dying for…

Political dying ”Can an individual citizen be obligated to make the safety of the state the motive of his voluntary death? ”

Rousseau: yes! n n To will the end is to will the means (Kutz: means are normatively inert) But: self-interest is not the basis for the social contract Social contract = moral transformation of individual will to collective will (Natural life and moral life) The state is our common life and we may have an obligation to die for the common life!

Some problems n - - Criminals and deserters have broken the social treaty => enemies of the state. Can be put to deeath because they have previously consented in virtue of sharing in civic life. But the fact that there can be rebels and traitors proves that the moral transformation is not entirely successful, and this lack of success gives a defence for the dissident: If he has never shared in civic life he cannot have an obligation to die on the basis of tacit consent.

The problem of ultimate obligation - - - Walzer: No man can be obligated to die for some goods unless he has previously recognised that these goods exist The social contract must involve acknowledgment of the common life Consent must be given over time (not a promise; common life must be lived) Common life must be possible

Conscientious objection 1) Absolute conscientious objection - Universal pacifist objection - Personal pacifist objection 2) Partial/selective conscientious objection - Non-pacifist objection

Absolute conscientious objection n n Universal: war is always wrong, therefore, no one should ever take part in war Personal: Others may fight, I will not. (my values forbid me, but I recognise that others have other values)

The dirty hands-problem n n n Is the allegation justified? Imagine a catholic doctor who refuses to perform abortions, but who sends her patients to a colleague. . Integrity? Free-riding? Pluralism

Are all reasons acceptable? n n n Imagine a racist doctor who refuses to operate on a black patient… Reasons must be communicable and morally acceptable even if they are not shared. . But do reasons matter with regard to war? Depends on how we assess the obligation of political dying Is it acceptable to refuse on non-moral grounds? (most deserters are afraid!)

”Walzer ”No one can be forced to fight or risk his life unless by some act of his own he has surrendered or lost his rights”

Beordringsplikten n n Bakgrunn “Frivillighetsprinsippet har (…) medført at Forsvaret ved enkelte anledninger ikke har klart å stille styrker til oppdrag det har vært pålagt å løse. ” (Ot. prp. 60 kap. 8. 6. )

Real consent n Consent to being an instrument for the state or consent to particular wars? n The possibility to opt out should be open!

The state’s right to conscript (Ryan) n n n n ”All states can legitimately impose a highly enforceable obligation on its citizens to fight in a war (…)” ’Highly enforceable’: ”coercion tracks compliance” (Yaffe) Liberal or republican freedom? What does ’legitimately’ mean? Power/liability (institutional rights) How does this fit with the right to life/the right to conscience? Claim/duty (non-institutional, moral rights) Conflict between power-right/sovereignty of state and (moral) claim-right of individuals

Unresolvable conflict? Hegel: 1) Military service cannot be based on individual rights/consent 2) The state can only exist with a viable military 3) Individual rights cannot be the basis for the state 4) OR: the individual/state relationship remains an unresolvable conflict! (from a liberal point of view)