Suchergebnisse

Responding to the unprecedented violence of our times, and the corresponding interest in nonviolent solutions, this book takes up the heart of pacifism: its critique of what pacifists have termed the war system. Pacifism as War Abolitionism provides an account of the war system that draws on contemporary sociology, history, and political philosophy. The core of its critique of that system is that war begets war, and hence war will not be ended - or even constrained - by finding more principled ways to fight war, as many imagine. War can only be ended by ending the war system, which can only be done nonviolently. This has been the message of pacifism's great voices like Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dorothy Day. It is the principal message of this book.

Responding to the unprecedented violence of our times, and the corresponding interest in nonviolent solutions, this book takes up the heart of pacifism: its critique of what pacifists have termed the war system. Pacifism as War Abolitionism provides an account of the war system that draws on contemporary sociology, history, and political philosophy. The core of its critique of that system is that war begets war, and hence war will not be ended--or even constrained--by finding more principled ways to fight war, as many imagine. War can only be ended by ending the war system, which can only be done nonviolently. This has been the message of pacifism's great voices like Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dorothy Day. It is the principal message of this book. Key Features Draws extensively on the sociological and historical research on war to expand the usual philosophical discussion beyond hypothetical accounts Expands the dialogues on the ethics of war beyond just war theory to its principal alternative: pacifism Engages discussion of empire and imperialism in relation to the logic and development of the war system Presents pacifism's response to the reality of war today, including the idea of "never-ending war"

Product Description: In recent years, the question of war and sacrifice has been a major topic of political debate and controversy. If our country goes to war for reasons we endorse, what is our responsibility to share in its sacrifices? Does supporting a war mean serving in it? Does it mean encouraging our children to do so? Such questions have been posed by the so-called "chickenhawk" phenomenon: pro-war leaders and their pro-war children who call on Americans to assume the burden of war and its sacrifices, but avoid those sacrifices themselves. President Bush and other architects of the Iraq conflict were the most prominent chickenhawks. Cheyney C. Ryan argues that the chickenhawk issue is not just a matter of personalities-it will remain with us for a long time even though the Bush administration has left office. Ryan poses fundamental questions of war and personal sacrifice, pointing to the basic disconnection in American politics generally between the support for war and the willingness to assume its costs, which he calls "Alienated War." Calling for the reinvigoration of civic involvement, this illuminating and insightful book offers both a philosophical and historical exploration of America's citizen-soldier tradition and the consequences involved in separating the citizenry from the armed forces

AbstractA starting point for thinking about war and preparations for war is that today the average citizen in Western countries has absolutely no interest in fighting in a war him or herself. The best study of this phenomenon rightly notes that what might be called the "great refusal" of ordinary people to involve themselves in actual war making reflects what might be called the "great disillusionment" with war itself. However, this has not meant the end of war, or of preparations for war, but rather war's transformation from a "nationalized" to a "postnationalized" arrangement. For the United States, this has meant expansion into a new type of empire. As part of the symposium on Ned Dobos'sEthics, Security, and the War-Machine,this essay explores these developments and the challenges they pose.

The message of Michael Ignatieff's reflections on reimagining a global ethic is a comforting one for political philosophers. It is vital, he writes, for philosophers to keep doing what they have been doing: addressing the injustices of globalization from a perspective of strict impartiality that treats every human being as the object of equal moral concern. Philosophers should continue to elaborate this "one world" perspective against those partial perspectives arising from the claims of one's particular country or particular religious faith. But their aim should not be to replace the one with the other, but to prompt an ongoing critical dialogue in which more particularistic doctrines of country or faith are called to justify themselves before the one-world ethic's impartial standards—thus prompting the kind of critical self-reflection that is essential to moral change. And in so doing, the one-world ethic cannot be uncritical of itself, for there are different ways of conceiving a global ethic, each of which must answer to the others.

Alice Hertz was a woman who, in J965, burned herself in protest against the Vietnam War. 1 first became aware of her through studying the writings of Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Worker Movement and a central figure in the history of nonviolence. In this essay I reflect on how Alice Hertz's action and Dorothy Day's vision of nonviolent commitment can each illuminate the other.

David Rodin's book, War and Self Defense, is a subtle and provocative analysis of the claim of self-defense and its relation to modern war. Building on his analysis, I raise some further issues about self-defense as a justification of modern nation state war. Principal among these is what I call the conscription paradox: if the state's right to make war is grounded in the right of its citizens to self-defense, how do we explain the right of modern states to conscript its citizens into the military – and order them to die, if need be? This problem has been acknowledged by liberal individual thinkers over the years, but not solved. It raises questions of whether a coherent account of current nation state military practice can be grounded in individual self-defense.

Part of a symposium on David Rodin's War and Self-Defense (New York: Oxford U Press, 2003) lauds the work as just the right starting point for discussions on the justice of war. Here, focus is on questions surrounding whether the state's demands on its own soldiers can be understood on the model of personal self-defense, drawing on Rodin's ideas. Conscription is considered on the basis of its perniciousness & its status as a key facet of the modern state. Conscription suggests that citizens of a defensive state can be obligated to kill &, more problematic, to die, which is termed here the "conscription paradox." Thus, the obligation to die & the obligation to kill are examined. If war is rooted in the individual right of self-defense, these obligations must derive from or be compatible with that right. It is asserted that one could dispense with these obligations by giving the state the right to make war but denying that this implies the right to demand soldiers kill & die, or war could be grounded in something other than self-defense that is more supportive of or compatible with these obligations. In conclusion, it is averred that states can legitimately defend themselves only if they are legitimate states; however, they can only defend themselves in a manner that compromises their legitimacy. Thus, all interstate war is illegitimate. J. Zendejas