Killing in War (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics) [Hardcover]

Jeff McMahan (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0199548668 | ISBN-13: 978-0199548668 | Publication Date: June 8, 2009 | Edition: 1

Killing a person is in general among the most seriously wrongful forms of action, yet most of us accept that it can be permissible to kill people on a large scale in war. Does morality become more permissive in a state of war? Jeff McMahan argues that conditions in war make no difference to what morality permits and that the justifications for killing people are the same in war as they are in other contexts, such as individual self-defence. This view is radically at odds with the traditional theory of the just war and has implications that challenge common sense views. McMahan argues, for example, that in most cases it is morally wrong to fight in a war that is unjust.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Killing in War is to date the most detailed and best defended analysis of the morality of killing in war." --Radical Philosophy Review

"McMahan makes his arguments with the meticulous logical care of analytical philosophy reminiscent of Derek Parfit's path-breaking work, Reasons and Persons. Killing in War is a provocative contribution to contemporary philosophy and military ethics." --The Journal of Politics

McMahan's outstanding and readable book Killing in War should help to quiet non-philosophers who dismiss Anglo-American philosophy for being esoteric and aloof, and philosophers who complain that little is happening in moral and political philosophy. He gives comprehensive arguments; he charitably formulates and conscientiously responds to objections. His conclusions might make many readers uncomfortable, but he arrives at them on the basis of moral considerations that otherwise are not particularly controversial. [The book's] rigor, depth, and humanity are estimable. --Lionel K. McPherson, Mind

"McMahan's arguments...are convincing. He has given those interested in military ethics a book that deserves praise.... McMahan's writing is always informative, systematic and well-organized. The rich collection of distinctions that he provides makes this book well worth reading carefully."--Nick Fotion, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

"Ultimately, as McMahan expertly demonstrates, there is really nothing - not institutional command, procedural guarantees, the 'special' nature of war itself, the description of combat - that adequately and cleanly differentiates war from non-war. This being so, we need to radically rethink the way we justfy war, the way we fight in war and the agency of the combatants we get to do our fighting for us... McMahan's book urgently needs to be read not only by combatants, to whom McMahan restores a real and profound sense of moral agency and autonomy, but by anyone who has voted for, backed, or declared war of any kind... McMahan's book offers some fine, clear answers."-- Nina Power, The Philosophers Magazine

"Jeff McMahan has written an important, highly intelligent book.... [It is] densely packed with intricate argument, well-informed, carefully written, and full of insight, scholarship, and tough argument."--C.A.J. (Tony) Coady, Australian Book Review

"[It is] a commonplace in modern thinking about political obedience and participation in war [that] soldiers aren't responsible for the wars their leaders initiate -- however wrongly -- and that if they fight in an unjust war, they are free from blame so long as they do so humanely, respecting the rules of discrimination and proportionality. Jeff McMahan's eloquent and rigorously argued book launches a devastating attack on this belief, showing why it cannot be sustained in international law or in the theory of the just war that supports it.... As a challenge to the received wisdom, the significance of McMahan's central claim cannot be overstressed."--Christopher Finlay, Political Quarterly

"I found this work so thoroughly convincing.... Killing in War represents a tremendous achievement from one of today's leading moral philosophers. Never before has a book so swiftly challenged my own views and convinced me that I was in error. I cannot recommend it highly enough."--Thom Brooks, Times Higher Education Supplement

"McMahan's book is a great achievement. His writing is lucid and the book stands as the most comprehensive and sophisticated criticism to date of both the idea of 'moral equality of combatants' and that civilians and soldiers can delegate their moral responsibility for the waging of an unjust war to their government. As a result, it will prove a most valuable read for anyone interested in just war theory."--Uwe Steinhoff, Cambridge Review of International Affairs

"Jeff McMahan has written a genuinely revolutionary book. He has uncovered a flaw in standard just-war theory.... Once advanced, McMahan's thesis seems obvious, and it is his considerable philosophical merit to make us realize how obvious it is. McMahan is a very careful philosopher; as soon as he states a thesis, he thinks of qualifications, objections, and rebuttals.... He does not operate from a general theory but proceeds from case to case, weaving an intricate web of subtle distinctions. Killing in War is a distinguished contribution to moral theory."--The Mises Review

"This book seems to me superb: highly important, gripping to read, and wholly convincing."-- Derek Parfit, University of Oxford

"Killing in War makes you wonder why the conventional wisdom about the ethics of killing in war has stood for so long. With persuasive arguments, lucidly stated, McMahan mounts a devastating critique of centuries-old orthodoxies. To wage war on a sound ethical basis is much more difficult than we previously thought. Everyone contemplating fighting in a war, or ordering others to do so, should read this book."--Peter Singer, Princeton University

"McMahan argues...that there is something terribly wrong with just war theory... By the end of the book, many readers will wonder how anyone could feel otherwise. ...McMahan develops [his] view with uncommon thoroughness, setting out numerous objections, and presents replies with the comprehensive efficiency of a medieval summa."
--Douglas Lackey, Journal of Applied Philosophy

"Killing in War is the high-water mark of just war theory since Just and Unjust Wars." -- Seth Lazar, Philosophy and Public Affairs

"McMahan's challenge to Just War theory in this gracefully written and challenging presentation is extremely important and deserves close attention... [He] performs an extremely important service inELproviding us with a sophisticated and original contribution to the debate. This book will be widely read and debated and deservedly so; anyone working on these topics will have to grapple with McMahan's subtle and important analysis of the issues." --Whitley Kaufman, Ethics

"In this densely argued and superbly written volume, Jeff McMahan provides a comprehensive defence of the claim that moral liability to attack in war follows from responsibility for the threat of harm posed by a war fought without a just cause (or one that is disproportionate). The comprehensive nature of McMahan's discussionELmakes clear why those concerned with the morality of killing in war must engage with it. Indeed, I believe that Killing in War ought to replace Michael Walzer's venerable Just and Unjust Wars as the text around which practitioners and theorists alike construct debates over the ethics of waging war." --Transnational Legal Theory

About the Author

Jeff McMahan is Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University. He works primarily in ethics and political philosophy, and occasionally in metaphysics and legal theory.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 248 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (June 8, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0199548668
• ISBN-13: 978-0199548668
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.8 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #893,205 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Reevaluating some just war dogmas, December 28, 2009

By 

Spencer Case (Pocatello, Idaho) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Killing in War (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics) (Hardcover)

Actual rating 4.5

Anyone seriously interested in the just war tradition is wrong not to be familiar with Jeff McMahan's work on the topic. In this work, McMahan goes after some sacred cows that virtually all non-pacifist writers about the ethics of war have taken for granted for centuries on surprisingly weak ground. Foremost among these is the idea of the moral equality of combatants; that is, that combatants on both sides of a given war are moral equals regardless of whether they are fighting for a just cause or an unjust cause.

The traditional view has it that, upon becoming combatants, combatants abdicate some of their right not to be killed in exchange for an expanded set of permissible actions, namely, the right to kill. McMahan denies that combatants on the just side of a war actually do this. If their cause is just, he argues, why should it be more permissible to kill them than "innocent" civilians? After all, both are innocent in the relevant manner.

I find McMahan is unbelievably presuasive in making this argument. If the book leaves anything to be desired it is that it is too narrow. We never really get a full-fledged account of justice of war. In fairness, the book never set out to do this. Still, I felt like a broader account would have been more fulfilling.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Defending common sense when it's not so common, February 4, 2011

By 

Nan Chen "cineaste" - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Killing in War (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics) (Hardcover)

This is an excellent book on just war theory or the ethics of war. It touches on all major aspects of the current debates within the morality of war both the morality of going to war (jus ad bellum) and conduct in war (jus in bello). The major thesis is one that I don't find all that surprising but it maybe surprising to many others: that unjust combatants don't have the same moral standing as just combatants. Many of the traditional just war theorists, and how international law sees it as well, both just and unjust combatants have equal moral standing on the battle field and both are permitted to kill each other. But McMahan argues (persuasively) that all of the available arguments to support this claim is deficient in one way or another. McMahan takes a very "fine grained" approach to attribution of blame and responsibility in the conduct of war and also its causes, meaning that his approach seeks to make nuanced distinctions between the moral complexities of wars while many other theorists have used much coarser-grained approaches such as grouping all civilian non combatants together or all combatants together as to their moral standing, etc.

Other important findings include: 1. That many of us are likely far more culpable and responsible for the unjust actions of our government in war than we often (would like to) believe and that this has important consequences for our moral standing. 2. That not all combatants, both within just groups and within unjust groups, share equal moral standings (some are far more culpable and responsible than others). 3. That some civilian non combatants are (though rarely) justifiably liable to be attacked by just combatants, and here McMahan gives a contemporary example and a historical example of non combatants that fits this criteria for this kind of moral liability.

Where I felt the book could have done a little better was that there were some parts of it that was quite philosophically convoluted. Though still well written, these parts could have used some (preferably real) examples sprinkled in between the arguments. Very complicated moral nuances are distinguished and discussed between the different kinds of rights and circumstances that are relevant. They are examined in depth from every direction possible but the lack of examples in some parts makes those sections dry and seem too "ivory tower." But this is a minor quibble as the work is quite well written in general.

McMahan (here and elsewhere) argues from analogy (as many just war theorists do) between the morality of personal self-defense and that of war. Much of his argument depends on a close analogy but I would also have liked for McMahan to talk more about the glaring dis analogy between the rare (perhaps only hypothetical presently) cases of military occupation without intent or reasonable likelihood of deaths or serious bodily injury to anyone on the just side. McMahan agrees that occupation of one's ancestral lands offer sufficiently good moral reason to kill potential or actual unjust occupiers. But if that seems to be at tension with laws and their moral foundation in self-defense for no state (except maybe Texas, Florida and a few other states) allows killing to defend property alone but only if the perpetrator intentionally threatens someone's life or gives reasonable threat of serious bodily injury is lethal self-defense allowed. If a foreign unjust power decides it only wants some other nation's land to occupy, perhaps for the resources on that land, but has no intent to physically harm any of the citizens of that land, then what is the reasoning behind allowing the citizens of that land to use deadly force to defend against the occupation? The import is that this could open up room for a defense of a weak kind of pacifism which McMahan does not discuss in depth. This question I think could be answered competently by McMahan or other just war theorists while maintaining the general analogy but it is one minor lacuna that kept me unsatisfied.