Cargando…

Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys

This paper discusses the application of the supreme emergency doctrine from just-war theory to non-antagonistic threats. Two versions of the doctrine are considered: Michael Walzer’s communitarian version and Brian Orend’s prudential one. I investigate first whether the doctrines are applicable to n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Sandin, Per
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7088582/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32214516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9145-5
_version_ 1783509566583996416
author Sandin, Per
author_facet Sandin, Per
author_sort Sandin, Per
collection PubMed
description This paper discusses the application of the supreme emergency doctrine from just-war theory to non-antagonistic threats. Two versions of the doctrine are considered: Michael Walzer’s communitarian version and Brian Orend’s prudential one. I investigate first whether the doctrines are applicable to non-antagonistic threats, and second whether they are defensible. I argue that a version of Walzer’s doctrine seems to be applicable to non-antagonistic threats, but that it is very doubtful whether the doctrine is defensible. I also argue that Orend’s version of the doctrine is applicable to non-antagonistic threats, but that his account is not defensible, regardless of whether the threats are antagonistic or not.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7088582
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70885822020-03-23 Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys Sandin, Per Philosophia (Ramat Gan) Article This paper discusses the application of the supreme emergency doctrine from just-war theory to non-antagonistic threats. Two versions of the doctrine are considered: Michael Walzer’s communitarian version and Brian Orend’s prudential one. I investigate first whether the doctrines are applicable to non-antagonistic threats, and second whether they are defensible. I argue that a version of Walzer’s doctrine seems to be applicable to non-antagonistic threats, but that it is very doubtful whether the doctrine is defensible. I also argue that Orend’s version of the doctrine is applicable to non-antagonistic threats, but that his account is not defensible, regardless of whether the threats are antagonistic or not. Springer Netherlands 2008-07-26 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC7088582/ /pubmed/32214516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9145-5 Text en © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Article
Sandin, Per
Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys
title Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys
title_full Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys
title_fullStr Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys
title_full_unstemmed Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys
title_short Supreme Emergencies Without the Bad Guys
title_sort supreme emergencies without the bad guys
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7088582/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32214516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11406-008-9145-5
work_keys_str_mv AT sandinper supremeemergencieswithoutthebadguys