Most of us take it for granted that wars in defence of one's political community are the quintessential just wars. Indeed, while in recent years philosophers have subjected all of our other assumptions about just war theory to radical revision, this principle has emerged largely unscathed. But what underpins the morality of defensive war? In this book, leading moral and political philosophers both show the profoundly challenging nature of that question, and advance novel answers to it. The first part exposes the deep tension between the individualist foundations of much contemporary philosophy and plausible conclusions about the morality of defensive war. The second part offers an individualist attempt to resolve that tension, while the third seeks to justify defensive war by appeal to more collectivist values.

This authoritative treatment on the ethics of war contains twelve original essays by eminent scholars who first challenged the orthodoxy of Just War theory, as well as by up-and-coming thinkers. The essays span both foundational and topical issues in the ethics of war.

This volume collects influential and groundbreaking philosophical work on killing in war. A "who's who" of contemporary scholars, this volume serves as a convenient and authoritative collection uniquely suited for university-level teaching and as a reference for ethicists, policymakers, stakeholders, and any student of the morality of war.

The ethics of war explores the moral limits and possibilities of war in its diverse forms. The feasibility of the moral limitation of war is upheld. At the same time, war's fragile moral potential is acknowledged and its causes sought. The argument is conducted from a traditional just war standpoint which balances rules or principles against the moral capacities and dispositions of belligerents and the particular circumstances in which they act. In this enlarged second edition, a new introduction addresses the common criticism that traditional just war theory is incoherent, outmoded, and in need of radical revision. Many of the problems attributed to the tradition by 'revisionists' are seen to derive from a distortion and oversimplification of the historical tradition. A fuller and more accurate understanding of that tradition can mitigate, or even resolve, these problems. It can also help to fill the gaps left in the ethical agenda of war by analytic ethics. Part I compares the conception of just war with realism, militarism and pacifism. Part II examines the principles of just recourse and just conduct with the aid of real life examples. A new Part III discusses the propriety of defining terrorism and the ethical problems raised by particular aspects of terrorism and counterterrorism, such as, the tension between moral and strategic concerns, the variable moral impact of different forms of terrorism, the status and the moral disposition of the terrorist, the treatment of noncombatants, the resort to preventive war and interrogational torture, and the use of drones and risk-free warfare.

How We Fight: Ethics in War contains ten groundbreaking essays by some of the leading philosophers of war. The essays offer new perspectives on key debates including pacifism, punitive justifications for war, the distribution of risk between combatants and non-combatants, the structure of 'just war theory', and bases of individual liability in war.

When and why is war justified? How, morally speaking, should wars be fought? The Morality of War confronts these challenging questions, surveying the fundamental principles and themes of the just war tradition through the words of the philosophers, jurists, and warriors who have shaped it. The collection begins with the foundational works of just war theory, as well as those of two competing perspectives, realism and pacifism. Subsequent selections focus on issues related to the resort to war, the conduct of war, and the judgment of war crimes. Both traditional just war concerns and those that have emerged in response to contemporary developments - such as the U.S. war on terror - are thoroughly covered. With articles that are crucially relevant to today's world paired with contextual introductions to each section, the reader is ideally constructed to inform and guide students as they consider the morality of past and current military actions.

When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and moral philosophers. By applying the theory of self-defense to international relations, Rodin produces a far-reaching critique of the canonical Just War theory. The simple analogy between self-defense and national defense - between the individual and the state - needs to be fundamentally rethought, and with it many of the basic elements of international law and the ethics of international relations.