Suchergebnisse

United States policy toward Israel's war in Gaza was neatly summarized by Secretary of State Antony Blinken on November 30: "Israel has one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world. It is capable of neutralizing the threat posed by Hamas while minimizing harm to innocent civilians. And it has an obligation to do so." This posture — destroy Hamas but do so in observance of the laws of war — is not that of the administration alone. It has been widely embraced by official Washington. A key defense of what would emerge as the hallmark of the Biden administration's Gaza outlook came from Jo-Ann Mort and Michael Walzer in the New Republic on October 18. "A just war requires the defeat of Hamas," they wrote. "It is a maxim of just war theory that the rules of war cannot make it impossible to fight a just war. There has to be a way to fight."In their view, the best way was "to fight with restraint, to reject indiscriminate bombing and shelling, to respect enemy civilians (many, many Gazans are opposed to Hamas), and take necessary risks to reduce their risks, and finally to maintain a clear goal: defeat for Hamas. Nothing more."Walzer is the author of Just and Unjust Wars, a hugely influential treatise on morality in war that has gone through successive editions since its publication in 1977. Walzer's meditation on the just war was especially impressive for taking on a wide range of historical examples, but it was written under the shadow of the war in Vietnam. Walzer condemned that war not only as an unjustified intervention but also as one that was "carried on in so brutal a manner that even had it initially been defensible, it would have to be condemned, not in this or that aspect but generally." In his treatise, Walzer closely considered both jus ad bellum (the right of going to war) and jus in bello (the law governing its conduct). As Walzer noted, "considerations of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are logically independent, and the judgments we make in terms of one and the other are not necessarily the same." But in the case of Vietnam, he argued, they came together. "The war cannot be won, and it should not be won. It cannot be won, because the only available strategy involves a war against civilians; and it should not be won, because the degree of civilian support that rules out alternative strategies also makes the guerillas the legitimate rulers of the country." Do not these strictures apply to Israel's war in Gaza? Hamas hides behind civilians, or is rather closely intermingled with them, as the Viet Cong once were. It has enjoyed an equal or greater amount of support from the local population. Its acts of assassination and terrorism fall far short, numerically, of those committed by the VC. Walzer was rightly shocked by the civilian toll in Vietnam, which saw a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of approximately two to one. In Gaza, the proportion of civilian-to-combatant deaths is at least five to one and probably much greater. Israeli leaders have made clear that their war is on the whole population. Their criteria for when to bomb, aided by AI, has blown past previous restraints. Another case taken up by Walzer in Just and Unjust Wars was America's atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The decision was justified at the time as the only way to avert the far larger casualties likely to ensue were the United States to have attempted an invasion of Japan. Walzer rejected this argument. "It does not have the form: if we don't do x (bomb cities), they will do y (win the war, establish tyrannical rule, slaughter their opponents)." Instead, the U.S. government in effect argued that "if we don't do x, we will do y." The real problem, Walzer argued, was the policy of unconditional surrender — that is, it had to do with U.S. war aims. Walzer approved the policy of unconditional surrender when applied to Germany — Hitler's regime represented a "supreme emergency" — but not when applied to Japan. "Japan's rulers were engaged in a more ordinary sort of military expansion, and all that was morally required was that they be defeated, not that they be conquered and totally overthrown," he wrote. Walzer's treatment of Vietnam and Hiroshima suggests that there are imperative reasons to stop short of total victory as a war aim, if the result of pursuing it is a moral enormity. If you have to commit wickedness on a titanic scale in order to achieve total victory, you should accept limited war and seek the containment of the enemy, not his obliteration. This is especially so, one might add, if the enemy one aims to annihilate elicits widespread sympathies elsewhere, making probable some kind of over-the-top retribution in the future. There are 2.2 million Gazans. There are 1.8 billion Muslims. Germany and Japan were friendless in 1945. It is obvious that Israel's war in Gaza bears no relationship to the war that Mort and Walzer recommended on October 18. Israel has not fought with restraint, has not rejected indiscriminate bombing and shelling, has not respected enemy civilians. Operation Swords of Iron has been instead the most elaborate and twisted application yet of the Dahiya Doctrine, Israel's longstanding war plan that makes a virtue out of wildly disproportionate retributions. That Israel intended to do this was apparent from the outset — 6,000 bombs were dropped in the war's first six days — but went strangely unnoticed by Mort and Walzer when their piece appeared. The authors stressed the need to get humanitarian aid into Gaza but didn't mention the Israeli blockade on all things requisite to life, a radical policy totally opposed to laws of war and imposed by Israel on the war's first day. In a subsequent interview on October 30, Walzer conceded that there was no justification for Israel's blockades of Gaza's electricity, water, and food supply, but also questioned the idea that a humanitarian pause would be justified before Hamas was defeated. "Acts that shock the moral conscience of mankind" was one of Walzer's most resonant phrases in Just and Unjust Wars. He meant by that "old-fashioned phrase" not the solipsistic prevarications of political leaders, but "the moral convictions of ordinary men and women, acquired in the course of their everyday activities." Clearly, Israel's war in Gaza has entailed a profound shock to these sensibilities. It is this revulsion, not sympathy for Hamas, that explains world-wide public opposition to what Israel is doing. From the beginning of the crisis, the Biden administration's approach to the war ran closely in parallel with the course recommended by Mort and Walzer. Eliminate Hamas. Do so while sparing civilians as much as possible. Then be sweet to the Palestinians and give them an independent state. Israel was happy to take the first part of this formula and to contemptuously reject the rest. Meanwhile, alongside these homilies to humane war, the United States has undertaken a vast effort to resupply Israel's stock of bombs. Confronting the escalating death toll, U.S. policymakers are dazed and confused. They're still on autopilot in support of Israel's war aim, while ineffectually shrieking in horror at the cost to Gaza's civilians. The truth is that there is no way to destroy Hamas without destroying Gaza. Contrary to Secretary Blinken's words (and Walzer's advice), Israel does not know how to destroy Hamas while minimizing harm to innocent civilians. Monumental harm to civilians follows from Israel's war aim of destroying Hamas, which the Biden administration and Walzer continue to endorse. That war aim stands in urgent need of reconsideration.Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn't cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraft so that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2024. Happy Holidays!

Judge Rao's 2022 Canary lecture has now been published in the Case Western Reserve Law Review.

With Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren proposing wealth taxes, Kate and Luigi break down how these taxes have or haven't worked in other countries and whether they could work in America.

Asked about people in general, respondents perceive moral decline. But when asked about specific acts or people in their personal worlds, the data tell a different story.

Osama bin Laden, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar have all issued famous fatwas. So how should we think about different interpretations of morality? In this article, the first of two parts, Mohamed Arafa analyses different sources of moral authority in Islam, illustrating the debate with examples from scholars, historians, and jurists … Continued

In this article, Loaay Wattad focuses on the evolution of hope and morality in dystopian narratives. Through the case study of 'The Hunger Games' trilogy, he explores how dystopian literature manifests and reverberates in our daily lives and emphasizes its development into a tangible political statement—one that challenges Hobbesian philosophy and its expression in contemporary politics. This analysis takes on added poignancy in light of current events, such as the ongoing war on Gaza, highlighting the timeliness and relevance of dystopian reflections in the face of contemporary conflicts and wars.

Many people are familiar with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (WoN), But Smith's ethical thinking was just as important. In fact, it was The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS), published 27 years earlier, on 12 April 1759, that made him famous.Just The Wealth of Nations, this book marked a complete break from the thinking of the time. Ethics had until then been widely assumed to be based on God's will (or the clerics' interpretation of it); or something that could be deduced through abstract reason; or even something that could be felt through some 'moral sense' like touch or vision. Replacing this speculative thinking by scientific method, Smith argued instead that morality stemmed from our human nature as social beings, and our natural empathy for others. By observing ourselves and others, he said, we could discover the principles of ethical behaviour. Ethics was a matter of human psychology, stemming from how we form judgements about ourselves and others, and the influence of customs, norms and culture upon it.This scientific approach to ethics was a sensation. It was very much in line with the Scottish Enlightenment, which sought to apply observation and scientific method to the study of human affairs. Old hierarchies were breaking down; industrialisation was eclipsing Scotland's feudal past; radical thinkers like Francis Hutcheson and David Hume were pushing new boundaries, and religious pluralism was creating a more active debate on virtue and morality.Smith's book explained that morality is rooted deeply in human psychology, especially the empathy we have for our fellow humans. By our nature, we understand, and even share the feelings of others. Wanting others to like us, we strive to act such that they do. Even if there is no one else around to see how we behave, we are still impelled to act honestly, says Smith, as if an 'impartial spectator' is judging us all the time, setting the standard by which we rate ourselves and others. And under this imaginary eye, every choice we make helps us appreciate that standard more clearly and act more consistently in accordance with it. It is as if an invisible hand is drawing us to act in ways that promote social harmony.TMS is mainly a descriptive account of human moral action. It examines how people actually make moral choices, and the pressures on them to do so. It also provides a guide on how we can cultivate our morality, emphasising the importance of self-reflection and self-improvement. Smith's radical scientific approach in TMS and WoN provided a foundation for the subsequent development of psychology, sociology, and economics, establishing them as distinct subjects of academic enquiry. And its suggestion that self-interested actions—wanting to be liked by others, or exchanging things we value less for others' things we value more—could produce a cooperative social and economic order, continues to have a central place in liberal thinking.All this makes the themes in The Theory of Moral Sentiments just as relevant today as they were in 1759. Through self-reflection, we can make better moral choices. Through our empathy with others, we can foster understanding and create a more peaceful society. Through an appreciation of our shared feelings and interests, we can live and work and collaborate together for the mutual benefit of the whole of humanity.

Scott Hershovitz (University of Michigan Law School) & Steven Schaus (University of Michigan Law School) have posted Dworkin in His Best Light on SSRN. Here is the abstract: In Justice for Hedgehogs, Ronald Dworkin suggested that we set aside the...

Further debate on textualism, "common good constitutionalism," and the classical legal method.

Indonesians' fixation on morality and moral issues has been heavily influenced by their religions, cultures, and traditions, as both liberals and conservatives agree. However, the #SahkanRUUPKS campaign to advocate ratification of a bill to eliminate sexual violence has highlighted the different perspectives on morality held by liberals and conservatives in Indonesia. The #SahkanRUUPKS campaign significantly … Continued

The Chicago Sun-Times' "right to be forgotten" policy is reminiscent of a similar European Union policy with one crucial difference: It's rooted in morality rather than obligation.
The post The Genius of a Private Right to Be Forgotten appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

As calls for Somaliland's eradication escalate, the Biden administration's delegitimization of Somaliland should raise serious questions about the morality and judgment of both Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
The post Biden's Incredible Insensitivity to Genocide: Africa Edition appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

An Iranian court has sentenced two journalists to more than a decade in prison for their coverage of the death Mahsa Amini. Amini died last year in the custody of the morality police after being arrested for violating the nation's Islamic dress code. Niloofar Hamedi and Elaheh Mohammadi received sentences of 13 and 12 years…

Last week we took a comparative look at the morality police and interpretations of law between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This week, in the second part of his work on Democratic vs. Corrupted Shārīe'ā, Mohamed ‘Arafa pitches a way forward for Islamic jurisprudence and moral authority. Undoubtedly, interpretations of "commanding the right and forbidding the … Continued

In Understanding Humans: How Social Science Can Help Solve Our Problems, David Edmonds curates a selection of interviews with social science researchers covering the breadth of human life and society, from morality, bias and identity to kinship, inequality and justice. Accessible and engaging, the research discussed in the book illuminates the crucial role of social sciences in addressing contemporary … Continued