Search results

AbstractSubsistence wars revolve around the use of force exercised by those faced with hunger, deprivation, and other survival crises. This idea has been formulated as an act emerging from the right of self-defense in the ethics of war literature. Alternatively, this study attempts to conceptualize and justify it with the notion of the right of necessity derived from Hugo Grotius. The structural difference between self-defense and necessity highlights strict just war conditions that must be met before, during, and after waging a subsistence war, especially when it emerges from the right of necessity. The idea of waging a war out of necessity seems too permissive; in fact, it has a regulatory aspect as well. Given the significance of the right to subsistence, which is universally shared yet globally threatened, the war of subsistence is to be seen as a real and pressing concern in current and future international society.

This paper addresses a misconception in the popular contrast between amoral realism and just war theory and clarifies the linguistic source of the misconception by disentangling the two interpretations of necessity. First, we can, and should, distinguish the Thucydidean "causal" conception of necessity, which is the basis for just war thinkers when they attack realist thought, from the Machiavellian "telic" conception. The paper, then, proceeds to reconsider the relationship between realism and morality through a textual analysis of representative contemporary realist theories and clarifies that their necessity judgments contain both causal and telic meanings. According to those supporting the moral view, the pursuit of national interest and security can be interpreted as emerging from their sense of moral duty. Realists are, even if partially, in line with just war theorists in evaluating the moral appropriateness of a war in itself and its methods. Finally, the paper explores the substantive disagreement between the two camps regarding the principle of discrimination, to demonstrate why they should still be assumed to have separate theories. In conclusion, their difference lies in not whether they place importance on the necessity judgment, among other considerations on the morality of war, but the extent to which they do so.

This article provides a philosophical foundation for the legitimacy of multicultural education by developing the analyses of Rawlsian political philosophy. For Rawls the most important primary good is that of self-respect, and this can be reinterpreted to make a convincing argument for multicultural education, provided that it has a strong connection to cultural minorities' sense of self-respect. After clarifying this connection, this article addresses the objection raised against the idea of equating multicultural education with a social basis of students' self-respect. It ends with a brief overview of a recent example of multicultural education in Japan.

AbstractThis study attempts to bridge the gap in empirical and philosophical research on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), through a survey of attitudes using experimental methods. "LAWS" refer to "fully autonomous weapons" that can set attack targets without human involvement and are lethal. Based on previous research, we conducted a randomized controlled experiment to create, present, and collect responses to scenarios describing military operations and outcomes that are likely to express awareness of the ethical issues raised by LAWS. First, our hypothesis that LAWS are less likely to be used was rejected, and the opposite trend was observed. Second, the hypothesis that civilian casualties rather than combatant casualties would influence LAWS use was strongly and significantly confirmed. Third, the hypothesis that remote weapons are more likely to be used than LAWS was rejected. Fourth, there was some support for the hypothesis that LAWS are more likely to be used in homeland defense. Fifth, the hypothesis that male and younger individuals are more willing to use LAWS was strongly and significantly confirmed for male, but not on the basis of age. This study highlights the need for further discussion based on these findings.