|
Showing 1 - 8 of
8 matches in All Departments
Can war be justified? Pacifists answer that it cannot; they oppose
war and advocate for nonviolent alternatives to war. But defenders
of just war theory argue that in some circumstances, when the
effectiveness of nonviolence is limited, wars can be justified. In
this book, two philosophers debate this question, drawing on
contemporary scholarship and new developments in thinking about
pacifism and just war theory. Andrew Fiala defends the pacifist
position, while Jennifer Kling defends just war traditions. Fiala
argues that pacifism follows from the awful reality of war and the
nonviolent goal of building a more just and peaceful world. Kling
argues that war is sometimes justified when it is a last-ditch,
necessary effort to defend people and their communities from utter
destruction and death. Pulling from global traditions and
histories, their debate will captivate anyone who has wondered or
worried about the morality of political violence and military
force. Topics discussed include ethical questions of self-defense
and other-defense, the great analogy between individuals and
states, evolving technologies and methods of warfighting, moral
injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, broader political and
communal issues, and the problem of regional security in a
globalizing world. The authors consider cultural and religious
issues as well as the fundamental question of moral obligation in a
world saturated in military conflict. The book was written in the
aftermath of the war on terrorism and includes reflection on
lessons learned from the past decades of war, as well as hopes for
the future in light of emerging threats in Europe and elsewhere.
The book is organized in a user-friendly fashion. Each author
presents a self-contained argument, which is followed by a series
of responses, replies, and counter-arguments. Throughout, the
authors model civil discourse by emphasizing points of agreement
and remaining areas of disagreement. The book includes
reader-friendly summaries, a glossary of key concepts, and
suggestions for further study. All of this will help students and
scholars follow the authors' dialogue so they may develop their own
answer to the question of whether war can be justified. Key
Features Summarizes the debate between pacifism and just war theory
Considers historical and traditional sources as well as
contemporary scholarship and applications Models philosophical
dialogue and civil discourse, while seeking common ground Discusses
issues of concern in contemporary warfighting and peacemaking,
while offering an analysis of the war on terrorism
Can war be justified? Pacifists answer that it cannot; they oppose
war and advocate for nonviolent alternatives to war. But defenders
of just war theory argue that in some circumstances, when the
effectiveness of nonviolence is limited, wars can be justified. In
this book, two philosophers debate this question, drawing on
contemporary scholarship and new developments in thinking about
pacifism and just war theory. Andrew Fiala defends the pacifist
position, while Jennifer Kling defends just war traditions. Fiala
argues that pacifism follows from the awful reality of war and the
nonviolent goal of building a more just and peaceful world. Kling
argues that war is sometimes justified when it is a last-ditch,
necessary effort to defend people and their communities from utter
destruction and death. Pulling from global traditions and
histories, their debate will captivate anyone who has wondered or
worried about the morality of political violence and military
force. Topics discussed include ethical questions of self-defense
and other-defense, the great analogy between individuals and
states, evolving technologies and methods of warfighting, moral
injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, broader political and
communal issues, and the problem of regional security in a
globalizing world. The authors consider cultural and religious
issues as well as the fundamental question of moral obligation in a
world saturated in military conflict. The book was written in the
aftermath of the war on terrorism and includes reflection on
lessons learned from the past decades of war, as well as hopes for
the future in light of emerging threats in Europe and elsewhere.
The book is organized in a user-friendly fashion. Each author
presents a self-contained argument, which is followed by a series
of responses, replies, and counter-arguments. Throughout, the
authors model civil discourse by emphasizing points of agreement
and remaining areas of disagreement. The book includes
reader-friendly summaries, a glossary of key concepts, and
suggestions for further study. All of this will help students and
scholars follow the authors' dialogue so they may develop their own
answer to the question of whether war can be justified. Key
Features Summarizes the debate between pacifism and just war theory
Considers historical and traditional sources as well as
contemporary scholarship and applications Models philosophical
dialogue and civil discourse, while seeking common ground Discusses
issues of concern in contemporary warfighting and peacemaking,
while offering an analysis of the war on terrorism
"Hey, that was kind of racist." "I'm not a racist! I have Black
friends." This exchange highlights a problem with how people in the
United States tend to talk about racially tricky situations. As
Racist, Not Racist, Antiracist: Language and the Dynamic Disaster
of American Racism explores, such situations are ordinarily
categorized as either racist or not racist (or, in other cases, as
antiracist). The problem is, there are often situations that are
racially not good, but that we do not want to categorize as racist,
either. However, since we don't have the language to describe this
in-between, we are forced to fall back on the racist/not
racist/antiracist trinary, which tends to shut down productive
discussion. This is especially true for white people, who tend to
take claims of racism-be they interpersonal or institutional-as a
personal attack. This is problematic, not only because it means
that white people never learn about their own racially troubling
behaviors, but also because such fragility keeps them from being
able to engage in productive discussions about systemic racial
oppression. Leland Harper and Jennifer Kling demonstrate how
expanding our racial vocabulary is crucial for the attainment of
justice equally enjoyed by all.
|
The Ethics of Anger (Paperback)
Court D. Lewis, Gregory L. Bock; Contributions by Will Barnes, Gregory L. Bock, Charles L. Griswold, …
|
R1,341
Discovery Miles 13 410
|
Ships in 10 - 15 working days
|
The Ethics of Anger provides the resources needed to understand the
prevalence of anger in relation to ethics, religion, social and
political behavior, and peace studies. Providing theoretical and
practical arguments, both for and against the necessity of anger,
The Ethics of Anger assembles a variety of diverse perspectives in
order to increase knowledge and bolster further research. Part one
examines topics such as the nature and ethics of vengeful anger and
the psychology of anger. Part two includes chapters on the
necessity of anger as central to our moral lives, an examination of
Joseph Butler's sermons on resentment, and three chapters that
explore anger within Confucianism, Buddhism, and other Eastern
religions. Part three examines the practical responses to anger,
offering several intriguing chapters on topics such as mind
viruses, social justice, the virtues of anger, feminism,
punishment, and popular culture. This book, edited by Court D.
Lewis and Gregory L. Bock, challenges and provides a framework for
how moral persons approach, incorporate, and/or exclude anger in
their lives.
Protest is a critical part of the contemporary political landscape.
However, much philosophical theorizing about protest does not
consider it as it is actually practiced, and instead focuses on how
it should look in the ideal case. We take up the question of how to
think about protest in the face of serious, substantial, ongoing
injustices. In short, we propose a theory of protest for our world.
What can or must protest include? What, if anything, must it avoid?
We argue, contrary to popular opinion, that suitably constrained
violent political protest is sometimes justified, when it is
necessary to send a message about the nature of the injustice at
stake. However, violent protests may only target those who are
liable for the relevant injustice, and protesters must take care to
ensure that their violent actions are not wanton, but are
constrained so as to be both effective and communicative. Violent
political protest, we contend, is not simply revolution by another
name: rather, it is sometimes a last-ditch effort to remedy
injustice without going to war.
|
The Ethics of Anger (Hardcover)
Court D. Lewis, Gregory L. Bock; Contributions by Will Barnes, Gregory L. Bock, Charles L. Griswold, …
|
R3,826
Discovery Miles 38 260
|
Ships in 10 - 15 working days
|
The Ethics of Anger provides the resources needed to understand the
prevalence of anger in relation to ethics, religion, social and
political behavior, and peace studies. Providing theoretical and
practical arguments, both for and against the necessity of anger,
The Ethics of Anger assembles a variety of diverse perspectives in
order to increase knowledge and bolster further research. Part one
examines topics such as the nature and ethics of vengeful anger and
the psychology of anger. Part two includes chapters on the
necessity of anger as central to our moral lives, an examination of
Joseph Butler’s sermons on resentment, and three chapters that
explore anger within Confucianism, Buddhism, and other Eastern
religions. Part three examines the practical responses to anger,
offering several intriguing chapters on topics such as mind
viruses, social justice, the virtues of anger, feminism,
punishment, and popular culture. This book, edited by Court D.
Lewis and Gregory L. Bock, challenges and provides a framework for
how moral persons approach, incorporate, and/or exclude anger in
their lives.
The current refugee crisis is unparalleled in history in its size
and severity. According to the UNHCR, there are roughly 67 million
refugees worldwide, the vast majority of whom are refugees as the
result of wars and other military actions. This social and
political crisis cries out for normative explanation and analysis.
Morally and politically, how should we understand the fact that 1
in every 122 humans is a refugee? How should we respond to it, and
why? Jennifer Kling argues that war refugees have suffered, and
continue to suffer, a series of harms, wrongs, and oppressions, and
so are owed recompense, restitution, and aid-as a matter of
justice-by sociopolitical institutions around the world. She makes
the case that war refugees should be viewed and treated differently
than migrants, due to their particular circumstances, but that
their circumstances do not wholly alleviate their own moral
responsibilities. We must stop treating refugees as objects to be
moved around on the global stage, Kling contends, and instead see
them as people, with their own subjective experiences of the world,
who might surprise us with their words and works. While targeted
toward students and scholars of philosophy, War Refugees: Risk,
Justice, and Moral Responsibility will also be of interest to those
working in political science, international relations, and foreign
policy analysis, and, more broadly, to anyone who is interested in
thinking critically about the ongoing refugee crisis.
The current refugee crisis is unparalleled in history in its size
and severity. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), there are roughly 67 million refugees worldwide,
the vast majority of whom are refugees as the result of wars and
other military actions. This social and political crisis-1 in every
122 humans is a refugee-cries out for normative explanation and
analysis. Morally and politically, how should we understand this
crisis? How should we respond to it, and why? Jennifer Kling argues
that war refugees have suffered, and continue to suffer, a series
of harms, wrongs, and oppressions, and so are owed recompense,
restitution, and aid-as a matter of justice-by socio-political
institutions around the world. She makes the case that war refugees
should be viewed and treated differently than migrants, due to
their particular circumstances, but that their circumstances do not
wholly alleviate their own moral responsibilities. We must stop
treating refugees as objects to be moved around on the global
stage, Kling contends, and instead see them as people, with their
own subjective experiences of the world, who might surprise us with
their words and works.
|
You may like...
Morbius
Jared Leto, Matt Smith, …
DVD
R179
Discovery Miles 1 790
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|