This edited collection offers a comparative approach to the topic of multiculturalism, including different authors with contrasting arguments from different philosophical traditions and ideologies. It puts together perspectives that have been largely neglected as valid normative ways to address the political and moral questions that arise from the coexistence of different cultures in the same geographical space. The essays in this volume cover both historical perspectives, taking in the work of Hobbes, Tocqueville and Nietzsche among others, and contemporary Eastern and Western approaches, including Marxism, anarchism, Islam, Daoism, Indian and African philosophies.

This book focuses on multiculturalism, racism and the interests of nonhuman animals. Each are, in their own right, rapidly growing and controversial fields of enquiry, but how do multiculturalism and racism intersect with the debate concerning animals and their interests? This a deceptively simple question but on that is becoming ever more pressing as we examine our societal practices in a pluralistic world. Collating the work of a diverse group of academics from across the world, the book includes writing on a wide range of subjects and addressing contemporary issues in this critical arena. Subjects covered include multiculturalism, group rights and the limits of tolerance; ethnocentrism and animals; racism and discrimination and non-Western alternatives to animal rights and welfare. The book will be of interest to researchers, lecturers and advanced students as well as range of social justice organisations, government institutions, animal activist organisations and environmental groups.

This edited collection offers a comparative approach to the topic of multiculturalism, including different authors with contrasting arguments from different philosophical traditions and ideologies. It puts together perspectives that have been largely neglected as valid normative ways to address the political and moral questions that arise from the coexistence of different cultures in the same geographical space. The essays in this volume cover both historical perspectives, taking in the work of Hobbes, Tocqueville and Nietzsche among others, and contemporary Eastern and Western approaches, including Marxism, anarchism, Islam, Daoism, Indian and African philosophies.

Angolan Political Thought introduces anticolonial thinkers whose writings on colonialism and liberation have been instrumental in the formation of Angolan identity. It focuses on the political nature of these thinkers and how their work has impacted Angolan political reality. Luís Cordeiro-Rodrigues both introduces and critically analyzes the thought of Queen Njinga, Mário Pinto de Andrade, Agostinho Neto and Pepetela and systematically addresses five important topics in Angolan political thought. Firstly, it gives a general introduction to African political philosophy and explains the place of Angolan political thought in this. Secondly, it explains how different Angolan thinkers have conceptualized colonialism and its effects on the global Black community. Thirdly, the book surveys what key Angolan thinkers have identified as legitimate and effective tools of liberation and resistance from colonialism. For example, it addresses the place of poetry for liberation, as well as the justification for war against colonial powers. Fourth, this book will explain the different theories that Africa and, in particular, African identity, consists of. Finally, it will look at Angolan theories of distributive justice and compensation for historical injustices.

This book focuses on multiculturalism, racism and the interests of nonhuman animals. Each are, in their own right, rapidly growing and controversial fields of enquiry, but how do multiculturalism and racism intersect with the debate concerning animals and their interests? This a deceptively simple question but on that is becoming ever more pressing as we examine our societal practices in a pluralistic world. Collating the work of a diverse group of academics from across the world, the book includes writing on a wide range of subjects and addressing contemporary issues in this critical arena. Subjects covered include multiculturalism, group rights and the limits of tolerance; ethnocentrism and animals; racism and discrimination and non-Western alternatives to animal rights and welfare. The book will be of interest to researchers, lecturers and advanced students as well as range of social justice organisations, government institutions, animal activist organisations and environmental groups.

This is the first comprehensive exploration of African ethics covering everything from normative ethics and applied ethics, to meta-ethics and methodology, as well as the history of its evolution. African Ethics provides an in-depth exploration of Ubuntu ethics which is defined as a set of values based on concepts such as reciprocity, mutual respect, and working towards the common good. Ubuntu ethics also strongly emphasize the place of human dignity. The book engages with both theory and practice and how these ethical ideas impact upon the actual lived experience of Africans. It also includes important political considerations such as the impact of imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism on African ethics as well as the negative impact of apartheid and the renaissance made possible by the 'The Truth and Reconciliation Commission' whose work was premised heavily on African ethical ideas. This book is not just a wide-ranging and incisive introduction but also a reformulation of key concepts and current debates in African ethics. Crucially, African Ethics is an inclusive text, one that speaks from an African perspective and contributes to the decolonizing of contemporary ethics.

There are a variety of reasons why it is important to have widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement regarding how to fight war (jus in bello) and when to enter war (jus ad bellum). Firstly, international humanitarian law was created in the West and states of power may either sidestep or use these norms as a political umbrella to pursue realist political ambitions. Secondly, war involves addressing the morality of killing and using violence and these two are normally impermissible. It is important to avoid biased perspectives and find a reasonable agreement. Thirdly, attacking compounds and media systems that serve military purposes can result to unnecessary deaths of civilians when the rule of proportionality is exercised. Fourthly, there is an increasing involvement of different countries in each other’s’ security legislation. Common grounds on how to understand war are necessary to explore. The major theme of this edited book will precisely address issues regarding the morality of war from a comparative perspective. The chapters in this book will look at two important debates regarding war ethics: a) when is it morally justified to enter in war? b) If one is in war, what are the morally acceptable violent methods? These topics have been debated substantially in the Western liberal context. What this volume does new is to address these topics taking into consideration concepts from non-mainstream Western and non-Western philosophical theories, with the use of concrete examples. Particularly, this means addressing those two issues taking into consideration concepts like Confucian Yi/Rightness, Ahimsa, Class Struggle, Ubuntu, Anarchism, Pacifism, Buddhism, Islam, Jihad, among other concepts. Therefore, this book provides a wider conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war by offering a comparative philosophical approach to just war theory. Fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed. Ethnocentrism and the preservation of superpowers’ interests dominate international politics, contravene international law and are not compliant with just war theory. The world organization is largely driven (as a facilitator) for superpowers’ geopolitical interests to wage war, even if not morally justified, and stretching the boundaries of international law. By way of illustration, United Nations (UN) weapons inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction under Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) in Iraq but an intervention under the façade of humanitarian justifications was driven by the United States (US) and coalition of the willing. Similarly, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US influenced immediate collective military intervention (via Chapter 51 of the UN Charter) against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan under Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 (2001). However, Al-Qaeda is a transnational organization, and non-state actor, and is not entirely based in Afghanistan and thus Article 51 only applies, as a last resort, to states that are attacking a UN Member State.[1] The intervention was not jus ad bellum. Therefore, an increasing moral concern in contemporary politics and moral theory is to address moral issues from a non-ethnocentric point of view. In terms of moral theory, this pattern is noticeable with the increasing relevance of comparative philosophy. For example, philosophers such as Chenyang Li (Li 2016), Thaddeus Metz and Daniel Bell (Bell and Metz 2011)have compared African and Confucian ethical values and built up a moral theory based on the combination of both schools of philosophy. Bai Tongdong (Bai 2010), Joseph Chan (Chan 2015), Mario Wenning (Wenning 2011), among others, have equally compared Chinese philosophy with Western philosophy with the goal of finding a moral system that comprises East and West. Thus, the concern of finding ethical values that are cross-cultural is an increasing concern in politics and moral philosophy. One particular area where this concern is urgent is the morality of war. The morality of war/just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. There are a variety of reasons why it is important to have widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement regarding how to fight war (jus in bello) and when to enter war (jus ad bellum). Firstly, it can be argued that international humanitarian law was created in the West (deriving from the visit of Swiss businessman Henri Dunant to the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino[2]) and under a realist perspective in international relations the international system is anarchic meaning that states of power may either sidestep or use these norms as a political umbrella to pursue political ambitions. Secondly, war involves addressing the morality of killing and using violence and these two are normally impermissible. Therefore, to justify something that is usually considered morally impermissible it is important to avoid biased perspectives and find a reasonable agreement. Thirdly, attacking compounds and media systems that serve military purposes can result to unnecessary deaths of civilians as evident with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aircraft bombing of Belgrade’s government supported radio television broadcasting on 23 April 1999. Despite 16 civilians (employees of Radio Television Serbia) being killed at its headquarters during these coordinated attacks, NATO justified the bombing (Eko 2012, pp. 393–394). It was argued that the station served a dual military and civilian purpose and therefore the control communications system was a justified target, and not intentionally Serbian civilians, due to its military use that reached over 100 radio relay sites across Serbia (Burri 2015, p. 151). The rule of proportionality is a vexed area and argued as lawful by NATO due to the fact that civilian harm was not excessive in comparison to the success of destroying the military communications command structure.[3] However, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) argued that the bombing for three hours of media coverage in comparison to 16 civilian workers being killed was disproportionate but no investigation of NATO negligence from the Office of the Prosecutor was recommended (ICTY 2000, para. 50, 90–91). Fourthly, there is an increasing involvement of different countries in each other’s’ security legislation. For instance China has been cooperating substantially to develop existing peace and security structures in various African countries. Thus, common grounds on how to understand war are necessary to explore. Just war theory has been driven from a liberal Western point of view, with a Christian perspective and almost solely by analytical philosophers. This volume wishes to offer a comparative perspective on just war theory which encompasses neglected perspectives. Drawing on expert contributions that cut across different ideologies and philosophical traditions, this volume provides fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed. The aim of this volume is to explore how different philosophical traditions and ideologies can provide normative insights to the conflicts that result of entering war and being in war. Therefore, this book steps out from common edited volumes that only engage with liberal analytic philosophy as a response to these conflicts and tries to offer a wider conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war. Consequently, this book offers a comparative philosophical approach to just war theory. In particular, this volume does this by having articles dedicated to neglected Western views, namely as Anarchism, Pacifism, Marxism, and continental philosophy (Schmitt) and articles dedicated to non-Western views, which encompass Confucian, Indian, African and Islamic perspectives. [1] Singh’s chapter 5 utilizing critical legal theory and international relations theory will provide more substance on a critique of interventions post 9/11. [2] The Battle of Solferino commenced on 24 June 1859 and concerned the victorious Franco-Sardinian Alliance which defeated the Austrian Army. In the aftermath, Dunant witnessed great suffering of the remaining wounded soldiers, inadequate hospitals and then self-published a pamphlet titled ‘A Memory of Solferino’ in 1862 (Crawford and Pert 2015, pp. 5–6). [3] Again, Singh’s chapter 5 will provide more substance on just war ethics being applied as a political umbrella to pursue institutional security and political ambitions.

There are a variety of reasons why it is important to have widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement regarding how to fight war (jus in bello) and when to enter war (jus ad bellum). Firstly, international humanitarian law was created in the West and states of power may either sidestep or use these norms as a political umbrella to pursue realist political ambitions. Secondly, war involves addressing the morality of killing and using violence and these two are normally impermissible. It is important to avoid biased perspectives and find a reasonable agreement. Thirdly, attacking compounds and media systems that serve military purposes can result to unnecessary deaths of civilians when the rule of proportionality is exercised. Fourthly, there is an increasing involvement of different countries in each other’s’ security legislation. Common grounds on how to understand war are necessary to explore. The major theme of this edited book will precisely address issues regarding the morality of war from a comparative perspective. The chapters in this book will look at two important debates regarding war ethics: a) when is it morally justified to enter in war? b) If one is in war, what are the morally acceptable violent methods? These topics have been debated substantially in the Western liberal context. What this volume does new is to address these topics taking into consideration concepts from non-mainstream Western and non-Western philosophical theories, with the use of concrete examples. Particularly, this means addressing those two issues taking into consideration concepts like Confucian Yi/Rightness, Ahimsa, Class Struggle, Ubuntu, Anarchism, Pacifism, Buddhism, Islam, Jihad, among other concepts. Therefore, this book provides a wider conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war by offering a comparative philosophical approach to just war theory. Fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed. Ethnocentrism and the preservation of superpowers’ interests dominate international politics, contravene international law and are not compliant with just war theory. The world organization is largely driven (as a facilitator) for superpowers’ geopolitical interests to wage war, even if not morally justified, and stretching the boundaries of international law. By way of illustration, United Nations (UN) weapons inspectors did not find weapons of mass destruction under Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) in Iraq but an intervention under the façade of humanitarian justifications was driven by the United States (US) and coalition of the willing. Similarly, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US influenced immediate collective military intervention (via Chapter 51 of the UN Charter) against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan under Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 (2001). However, Al-Qaeda is a transnational organization, and non-state actor, and is not entirely based in Afghanistan and thus Article 51 only applies, as a last resort, to states that are attacking a UN Member State.[1] The intervention was not jus ad bellum. Therefore, an increasing moral concern in contemporary politics and moral theory is to address moral issues from a non-ethnocentric point of view. In terms of moral theory, this pattern is noticeable with the increasing relevance of comparative philosophy. For example, philosophers such as Chenyang Li (Li 2016), Thaddeus Metz and Daniel Bell (Bell and Metz 2011)have compared African and Confucian ethical values and built up a moral theory based on the combination of both schools of philosophy. Bai Tongdong (Bai 2010), Joseph Chan (Chan 2015), Mario Wenning (Wenning 2011), among others, have equally compared Chinese philosophy with Western philosophy with the goal of finding a moral system that comprises East and West. Thus, the concern of finding ethical values that are cross-cultural is an increasing concern in politics and moral philosophy. One particular area where this concern is urgent is the morality of war. The morality of war/just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. There are a variety of reasons why it is important to have widespread cross-cultural and cross-ideological agreement regarding how to fight war (jus in bello) and when to enter war (jus ad bellum). Firstly, it can be argued that international humanitarian law was created in the West (deriving from the visit of Swiss businessman Henri Dunant to the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino[2]) and under a realist perspective in international relations the international system is anarchic meaning that states of power may either sidestep or use these norms as a political umbrella to pursue political ambitions. Secondly, war involves addressing the morality of killing and using violence and these two are normally impermissible. Therefore, to justify something that is usually considered morally impermissible it is important to avoid biased perspectives and find a reasonable agreement. Thirdly, attacking compounds and media systems that serve military purposes can result to unnecessary deaths of civilians as evident with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aircraft bombing of Belgrade’s government supported radio television broadcasting on 23 April 1999. Despite 16 civilians (employees of Radio Television Serbia) being killed at its headquarters during these coordinated attacks, NATO justified the bombing (Eko 2012, pp. 393–394). It was argued that the station served a dual military and civilian purpose and therefore the control communications system was a justified target, and not intentionally Serbian civilians, due to its military use that reached over 100 radio relay sites across Serbia (Burri 2015, p. 151). The rule of proportionality is a vexed area and argued as lawful by NATO due to the fact that civilian harm was not excessive in comparison to the success of destroying the military communications command structure.[3] However, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) argued that the bombing for three hours of media coverage in comparison to 16 civilian workers being killed was disproportionate but no investigation of NATO negligence from the Office of the Prosecutor was recommended (ICTY 2000, para. 50, 90–91). Fourthly, there is an increasing involvement of different countries in each other’s’ security legislation. For instance China has been cooperating substantially to develop existing peace and security structures in various African countries. Thus, common grounds on how to understand war are necessary to explore. Just war theory has been driven from a liberal Western point of view, with a Christian perspective and almost solely by analytical philosophers. This volume wishes to offer a comparative perspective on just war theory which encompasses neglected perspectives. Drawing on expert contributions that cut across different ideologies and philosophical traditions, this volume provides fresh insights into how the normative problems that arise from just war can be addressed. The aim of this volume is to explore how different philosophical traditions and ideologies can provide normative insights to the conflicts that result of entering war and being in war. Therefore, this book steps out from common edited volumes that only engage with liberal analytic philosophy as a response to these conflicts and tries to offer a wider conceptual framework to deal with the morality of war. Consequently, this book offers a comparative philosophical approach to just war theory. In particular, this volume does this by having articles dedicated to neglected Western views, namely as Anarchism, Pacifism, Marxism, and continental philosophy (Schmitt) and articles dedicated to non-Western views, which encompass Confucian, Indian, African and Islamic perspectives. [1] Singh’s chapter 5 utilizing critical legal theory and international relations theory will provide more substance on a critique of interventions post 9/11. [2] The Battle of Solferino commenced on 24 June 1859 and concerned the victorious Franco-Sardinian Alliance which defeated the Austrian Army. In the aftermath, Dunant witnessed great suffering of the remaining wounded soldiers, inadequate hospitals and then self-published a pamphlet titled ‘A Memory of Solferino’ in 1862 (Crawford and Pert 2015, pp. 5–6). [3] Again, Singh’s chapter 5 will provide more substance on just war ethics being applied as a political umbrella to pursue institutional security and political ambitions.