Rights in the Balance

Journal article

AbstractProfessor Walen’s book rejects the familiar argument of “double effect,” namely the doctrine that an action that knowingly causes the death of another person cannot be justified merely by its good consequences but only by its good intentions. Professor Walen offers a rival argument. He proposes that we rethink the killing of non-combatants in war on the basis of a theory of “the mechanics of claims” so that the intentional killing of civilians may be occasionally permissible. Such targeting of civilians may be justified, according to the book’s argument, by the aim of eliminating the threat that these civilians may pose—innocently or not—to other persons. In these circumstances, it will not only be permissible, but it would also be a matter of right to kill civilians, which would be derived from a balancing of “claims.” The argument is impressively made but is ultimately unconvincing. All the decisive questions appear to be matters of a balance of “goodness.” The “mechanics of claims” organizes a structure of welfare values that ultimately work as a proxy for act-utilitarianism. As a result, the argument is open to well-known objections regarding justice and the separateness of persons.

Authors: Eleftheriadis, P

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Springer
• Journal: Jus Cogens
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 181-192
• Publication date: 2022-01-12
• DOI: 10.1007/s42439-021-00050-5
• EISSN: 2524-3985
• ISSN: 2524-3977
• Language: English
• Keywords: Epistemology; Philosophy; Balance (ability); Doctrine; Political science; Psychology; Argument (complex analysis); Utilitarianism; Law and economics; Sociology; Law