To What Extent Is McMahan’s Case Against The Moral Equality Of Combatants Doctrine Successful?

Write an essay on the given topic-

To what extent is McMahan’s case against the moral equality of combatants doctrine successful?

The structure of traditional just war theory is basically replicated in the international law including two of the major elements concerning with the permissibility of the declaring war and the concern related to the permissibility conducted within the war. According to the equality doctrine, combatants on both of the side of the war regardless of their mutual conceptual independence have the full rights towards hurting and killing their enemy combatants (McMahan 2006). Contradicting the ideas and the thought of one of the most renowned and contemporary advocates of the decade, Michael Walzer, a detailed accusation was explained in the book Killing in War. Prosecuted by Jeff McMahan the book illustrated one of the most significant comments on the theory of Just War that has been applicable for many of the years. The two of the most prominent of the focus of the complaints of Jeff McMahan was over the unjustified ability of the combatants towards meeting the standards with the failure towards the cause for meeting the standards. The debate on the moral equality of combatants by Jeff McMahan still persists. The essay argues with the fact whether the Jeff McMahan case against the moral equality of combatants is successful and if yes then to what extent.

The doctrine of the moral equality of the combatant’s states that the combatants of either of the side of a war tend to have similar moral status even in case of one side is violent or fighting and another side is not (Walzer 2015). The illustration of the doctrine explains the arguments that tend to offer the collectivist position that is being famously articulated by Walzer and Jeff McMahan regarding the individualist critique that is furthermore influential. The doctrine has been considered in terms of dominant view throughout history and it is hard to watch its correctness as a matter of basic morality.

According to Walzer in the doctrine, the soldiers cannot endure any sort of modern warfare for an extended period of time without putting blame on someone for their ongoing suffering and pain.  He raised the context of Marxists false consciousness explaining how their condemnation focused mainly on the men with whom they were mostly engaged. In the context of the moral arguments with the historical illustrations, the philosopher explained the level of hatred which has been in the increasing rate in the trenches. He illustrated this factor as an alarming reason why the wounded enemies in the battlefield are often left to die and the prisoners are killed in the thought that the soldiers who are the prisoners are personally responsible for the war (Hurka 2007).  The doctrine illustrated hatred as an interrupted and over bidden phenomenon by some of the more reflective understanding that is generally expressed against the letter and the memories of the war. Walzer illustrated the basic notion that when one side of the soldiers can kill another it is valid to kill them or harm them also when getting the opportunity or the chance (Walzer 2015). He overlooked the factor of the deep reason behind the occurrence of the war which is basally not dependable on the soldiers.

The Doctrine

Soldiers, however, are not entirely without the violation. Their will is effective and independent in a very limited sphere and in most of the cases, the sphere is basically narrow.

As per the consideration and the view of Jeff McMahan and the assignment questions, the essay will explain the insight and the analysis of the doctrine as per the evaluation and the criticism by Jeff McMahan. There have been several argument and replies in the response of the objection of McMahan regarding the doctrine, the assignment highlights the arguments related to the criticism of the doctrine.

According to Jeff McMahan, people do not tend to lose their moral rights by the justice of defending themselves and another innocent individual against the unjust attacks. Hence according to the famous philosopher, unless the people lose their rights for some of the reasons other than the instance of acquiring the status of the combatant, the combatants are basically innocent in the relevant sense. In the debate regarding the success of the doctrine, the philosopher depicts the orthodox view. As per the orthodox view, adhering to the jus in bello restrictions, the combatants of both the sides of a war field have the right to harm and kill their enemy.

The philosopher furthermore thinks that the objections of the kind conclusively demonstrate the moral inequality of the combatants in their basic level of morality (Steinhoff 2008). Jeff McMahan’s principle is correct in this scenario since it is not true at each and every warfare that the combatants on both of the sides trigger the similar rights towards harming the enemy combatants together with the provision that they abide by the traditional restrictions of jus in bello.

According to Jeff McMahan, it is basically wrong to harm and kill the innocent people according to terms of moral even in the consideration of the initiative towards the achievement of the goals. The concept of the military euphemism targeting the collateral damage is basically the concomitant slaughter and the mutilation of the innocents. Even in the case of the just soldiers not harming and killing the innocent people and contributing to them are being killed. One of the effective ways to escape the debate and the conclusion would be invoking the doctrine of the double effect or something similar principle together with the arguments towards the wrong by standard effects. According to the conceptual framework by Jeff McMahan the attack on someone who is basically not liable for the attack could never be just nominal. The concept furthermore prohibits the central tenant of philosophy.

The second effective way towards the escape of the conclusion considering the liability of the justified soldiers for attacking is a factor for an argument for the combatants. Jeff McMahan recognizes in a very different context for the effect of the co-ordinated surrender of the entire country and for the wrongful actions.

There has been a very dominant and unjustified view regarding the participation at an unjust warfare thorough out the history. The central to the concept of the theory lays the current form of orthodox (Walzer 2015). As per the contemporary theory of just war, the principles regarding the governing of the conduct of the war tend to make no sort of discrimination and distinction among the soldiers in the confusion of the war being just or unjust. The principles are furthermore held to be equally satisfiable by the individuals who engage in the fights. As per the knowledge and the depiction by Jeff McMahan, the theory illustrates the scenario that the combatants do wrong while in case of the violation of the principles together with the determination of the war type.

Walzer on the moral equality of the soldiers

The context of war, violence and interpersonal conflicts can be due to a variety of reasons. This may include causes that may be unnecessary for the achievement of the particular cause. According to Jeff McMahan, the reigning theory is the traditional theory of just war. In the context of the doctrine, the philosopher explained how the theory about the morality of the war has been under domination for several hundred years in the western world and includes two of the distinct components. The doctrine furthermore revealed the real characteristics claiming the two dimensions as totally separable and distinct towards the principle of governing the war for the application on the states and their political leaders which are furthermore not applicable to the soldiers and the combatants.  Jeff McMahan in the doctrine furthermore reveals how the rules are supposed to be neutral among both the sides of the war.  The doctrine furthermore provides a symmetrical account regarding the morality of the killing in the war. The philosopher argued that soldiers on both the sides are morally liable for attacking and are permitted to kill soldiers maintaining the symmetry of both the sides. Informed and noted in the international law, the doctrine possesses similar view regarding the legality that the theory of the traditional war has regarding the context of the morality.

In the context of the success of the McMahan’s case against the moral equality of combatant’s doctrine, the philosopher depicted the explanation of the moral equality of the similar rights, the similar permissions, and the liabilities. He furthermore explained in this connection; regarding the invalid distinguish among the theory. According to Jeff McMahan,  the doctrine of the moral equality of combatants cannot be true and valid. This is because the moral symmetrical position regarding both the ideas of the people fighting and violence for a particular and specific goal and the people conflicting for any unjustified goal is just completely implausible in nature.  The entire context of the permissibility of harming and killing people cannot be clearly distinguished from the causes of violence from the people justifying the invalidity of the doctrine by the philosopher.

As per the knowledge of Jeff McMahan, it is basically an analogy towards which some of the people have appealed and some claim the context of war as a boxing match where the combatants of both the sides voluntarily waive the right not to be attacked by the other combatants on the other side. The philosopher argued with the view that has been inherent in the notion of a soldier or the combatants. Furthermore, as per the case of the German general Erwin Rommel, the philosopher explained his view regarding the thought that how he thinks the general has not acted permissibly. The general had not been admirable and honourable and his actions were just like a housebreaker. The philosopher explained his actions as somebody who tends to engage in complete wrongful activities but also obeys some of the rules constraining the wrongful activities in some of the desirable ways. Thus it can be summarized that there may have been some of the sacrifice related to the efficacy for the sake of making sure regarding the warfare. It is much more likely that the hesitations and the doubts have the tendency to arise in the case or scenario of genuine unjust wars. Wars generally tend to persist over the time and there may be some of the urgent need towards the mobilization for the avoiding of the defeat. Far more information is generally available and there lies some of the usually less urgency regarding the continued mobilization for the trade-off among the efficiency and the avoiding of the communication for a favourable aim to avoid the continuation of unjust was for the requirements towards the maintenance of efficiency.

Conclusion

The concept of the military euphemism targeting the collateral damage is basically the concomitant slaughter and the mutilation of the innocents. Jeff McMahan in the criticism of the doctrine illustrated the instance that how it is essential to note that it is wrong to kill someone without any specific goals related to personal issues. According to the equality doctrine, combatants on both of the side of the war regardless of their mutual conceptual independence have the full rights towards hurting and killing their enemy combatants. The two of the most prominent of the focus of the complaints of Jeff McMahan was over the unjustified ability of the combatants towards meeting the standards with the failure towards the cause for meeting the standards. The debate on the moral equality of combatants by Jeff McMahan still persists. The essay highlighted the rate of success of Jeff McMahan case against the moral equality of combatants.

References

Hurka, T., 2007. Liability and just cause. Ethics & International Affairs, 21(2), pp.210-213.

McMahan, J., 2006. On the moral equality of combatants. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), pp.377-393.

Steinhoff, U., 2008. Debate: Jeff McMahan on the moral inequality of combatants. Journal of Political Philosophy, 16(2), pp.220-226.

Walzer, M., 1977. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books,pp. 36-40.

Walzer, M., 2015. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books.