Stephen de Wijze | The University of Manchester (original) (raw)

Related Authors

Tom Baum

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Uploads

Papers by Stephen de Wijze

Edinburgh University Press eBooks, Jul 15, 2005

The Journal of Ethics

This chapter introduces the Special Issue and offers an overview of the corpus of work on the top... more This chapter introduces the Special Issue and offers an overview of the corpus of work on the topic since the publication of Michael Walzer’s seminal article, ‘Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands’.

Journal of Military Ethics

A recent empirical study has argued that experts in the ethics or the law of war cannot reach rea... more A recent empirical study has argued that experts in the ethics or the law of war cannot reach reasonable convergence on dilemmas regarding the number of civilian casualties who may be killed as a side effect of attacks on legitimate military targets. This article explores the philosophical implications of that study. We argue that the wide disagreement between experts on what in bello proportionality means in practice casts serious doubt on their ability to provide practical real-life guidance. We then suggest viewing in bello proportionality through the prism of virtue ethics.

South African Journal of Philosophy, 1996

Politics and Morality, 2007

Can it be right to do wrong? Could it ever be the case that it is right to execute one innocent p... more Can it be right to do wrong? Could it ever be the case that it is right to execute one innocent person in order to save the lives of ten others? Could situations arise where it would be permissible — even laudatory — to punish a person known to be innocent? Elizabeth Anscombe maintained that anyone who even contemplated such scenarios showed a corrupt mind.1 Alan Donagan argues that the problem of dirty hands, doing what is wrong to do right, ‘arises from a twofold sentimentalisation: of politics, imagining it as an arena in which moral heroes take hard (that is, immoral) decisions for the good of us all; and of common morality, ignoring the conditions it places on the immunities it proclaims’.2 Utilitarians, such as Brandt and Hare, argue that such questions simply heap confusion on already difficult situations. To ask such a question is to reveal a deep misunderstanding of morality, one that is uncritical and primitive.

Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets

Journal of International Political Theory, 2007

The paper examines a specific charge against Rawls's political liberalism, namely that the ma... more The paper examines a specific charge against Rawls's political liberalism, namely that the manner in which it uses the notion of reasonableness renders it a form of secular fundamentalism. The paper begins with an examination of what Rawls means by his notion of ‘the reasonable’ and briefly outlines its role in his version of political liberalism. This leads to a discussion of the different meanings of ‘secular fundamentalism’ and how it is specifically used in its criticism of Rawls's ‘justice as fairness’. The essay then offers two arguments to show that the charge of secular fundamentalism cannot be sustained due to a deep misunderstanding of the derivation and use of the notion of reasonableness as well as the context, scope, and aims of Rawls's political liberalism in particular and the project of political liberalisms more generally.

Edinburgh University Press eBooks, Jul 15, 2005

The Journal of Ethics

This chapter introduces the Special Issue and offers an overview of the corpus of work on the top... more This chapter introduces the Special Issue and offers an overview of the corpus of work on the topic since the publication of Michael Walzer’s seminal article, ‘Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands’.

Journal of Military Ethics

A recent empirical study has argued that experts in the ethics or the law of war cannot reach rea... more A recent empirical study has argued that experts in the ethics or the law of war cannot reach reasonable convergence on dilemmas regarding the number of civilian casualties who may be killed as a side effect of attacks on legitimate military targets. This article explores the philosophical implications of that study. We argue that the wide disagreement between experts on what in bello proportionality means in practice casts serious doubt on their ability to provide practical real-life guidance. We then suggest viewing in bello proportionality through the prism of virtue ethics.

South African Journal of Philosophy, 1996

Politics and Morality, 2007

Can it be right to do wrong? Could it ever be the case that it is right to execute one innocent p... more Can it be right to do wrong? Could it ever be the case that it is right to execute one innocent person in order to save the lives of ten others? Could situations arise where it would be permissible — even laudatory — to punish a person known to be innocent? Elizabeth Anscombe maintained that anyone who even contemplated such scenarios showed a corrupt mind.1 Alan Donagan argues that the problem of dirty hands, doing what is wrong to do right, ‘arises from a twofold sentimentalisation: of politics, imagining it as an arena in which moral heroes take hard (that is, immoral) decisions for the good of us all; and of common morality, ignoring the conditions it places on the immunities it proclaims’.2 Utilitarians, such as Brandt and Hare, argue that such questions simply heap confusion on already difficult situations. To ask such a question is to reveal a deep misunderstanding of morality, one that is uncritical and primitive.

Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets

Journal of International Political Theory, 2007

The paper examines a specific charge against Rawls's political liberalism, namely that the ma... more The paper examines a specific charge against Rawls's political liberalism, namely that the manner in which it uses the notion of reasonableness renders it a form of secular fundamentalism. The paper begins with an examination of what Rawls means by his notion of ‘the reasonable’ and briefly outlines its role in his version of political liberalism. This leads to a discussion of the different meanings of ‘secular fundamentalism’ and how it is specifically used in its criticism of Rawls's ‘justice as fairness’. The essay then offers two arguments to show that the charge of secular fundamentalism cannot be sustained due to a deep misunderstanding of the derivation and use of the notion of reasonableness as well as the context, scope, and aims of Rawls's political liberalism in particular and the project of political liberalisms more generally.

Log In