Mcmahon's Views on Contingent Pacifism
Pacifism is a term regarding the moral permissibility to engage in war. Just war theorists and pacifists debate that the participation in war can be justifiable. The most extreme embargo against participation in war comes from “absolute pacifism” theory which states that war is unable to be morally justified under any conditions. This absolutist form of pacifism centres on the viewpoint that each individual has some absolute right not to be killed, and that war inevitably kills those who have failed to do anything to lose that right. Therefore, these individuals are not liable to any harm leading to the aforementioned conclusion regarding the impermissibility of all war. Absolute pacifism, although noble in its intent, has been successfully been argued to be morally untenable. In more recent times, a new pacifist theory has emerged which argues in favour of individuals having no absolute right to not be killed – contingent pacifism. This theory has been criticized heavily by Jeff McMahan (2010); describing contingent pacifism as “untenable”. This essay will endeavour to present the case against contingent pacifism offered by McMahan, and also expand on these ideas presented.
Before ideas and theories are explored, it is important to state some key definitions of terms that will be used widely throughout this essay. McMahan categorizes stakeholders within war into four broad classifications. (1) “Just Combatants” – soldiers fighting in a just war; (2) “Just civilians” – those who do not fight (ie. non-combatants) on the just side; (3) “Unjust Combatants” – soldiers fighting in a war that lacks just cause; (4) “Unjust Civilians” – non-combatants on the unjust side.
Contingent pacifists acknowledge that people have no absolute right to not be killed or harmed. This is even true in the case of just civilians who are often the easiest of people to argue an absolute right – as they have done nothing to lose their right to not be harmed. However, this right can be
Before ideas and theories are explored, it is important to state some key definitions of terms that will be used widely throughout this essay. McMahan categorizes stakeholders within war into four broad classifications. (1) “Just Combatants” – soldiers fighting in a just war; (2) “Just civilians” – those who do not fight (ie. non-combatants) on the just side; (3) “Unjust Combatants” – soldiers fighting in a war that lacks just cause; (4) “Unjust Civilians” – non-combatants on the unjust side.
Contingent pacifists acknowledge that people have no absolute right to not be killed or harmed. This is even true in the case of just civilians who are often the easiest of people to argue an absolute right – as they have done nothing to lose their right to not be harmed. However, this right can be
Bibliography: Bazargan, S., 2013. Varieties of Contingent Pacifism in War. In: G. Lang & H. Frowe, eds. How We Fight: Ethics and War. San Diego: Oxford University Press. Lee, S., 2012. Understanding War in Moral Terms. In: Ethics and War. Cambridge: University Press, pp. 22-28. McMahan, J., 2009. Civilian Liability and Terrorism. In: Killing in War. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 230-235. McMahan, J., 2010. Pacifism and Moral Theory. Diametros, Issue 23, pp. 44-68. Rodin, D., 2002. War and Self-Defence. Oxford: University Press. Rohde, D., 1997. Sunday, July 16, 1995. In: Endgame: the betrayal and fall of Srebrenica, Europe 's worst massacre since World War II. s.l.:Westview Press, pp. 307-313.