1 00:00:01,480 --> 00:00:07,100 Okay. Thanks for the invitation. And some of you might have got it. 2 00:00:07,390 --> 00:00:16,360 A draft of the of the paper. But for those who haven't, I will now give, you know, kind of exposition of of the ideas. 3 00:00:18,370 --> 00:00:28,240 Now, historically, there is there is a there exists a position in just war theory that actually the combatants on the on the unjustified in the war, 4 00:00:28,570 --> 00:00:32,200 at least if they know that they are on the unjustified side of the war, 5 00:00:32,740 --> 00:00:39,190 are not allowed to participate in the war, and cannot just they kill the combatants on the other sides. 6 00:00:39,640 --> 00:00:44,350 This is somehow this is very often actually misinterpreted the history. 7 00:00:44,470 --> 00:00:49,959 Very often you hear people say that the idea of a moral and equality of combatants, 8 00:00:49,960 --> 00:00:54,910 that is the idea that combatants on both the justified and the unjustified 9 00:00:54,910 --> 00:01:00,580 sides are allowed to kill each other in the war is actually the orthodox view. 10 00:01:01,240 --> 00:01:09,069 This is not the Orthodox view at all, but it's it's constantly confused, not only serious in Victoria, 11 00:01:09,070 --> 00:01:14,139 but a couple of other authors explicitly denied that there is such an equality of war. 12 00:01:14,140 --> 00:01:17,410 And by the way, also also state and for reasons unknown to me, 13 00:01:17,590 --> 00:01:22,360 a lot of people think somehow that Grotius is the great founder of the more equality of combatants. 14 00:01:22,360 --> 00:01:29,110 That's that's complete nonsense but nonsense that's widely believed now in recent 15 00:01:29,110 --> 00:01:36,190 times to be the author or who has who has perhaps done most to to provide arguments, 16 00:01:36,550 --> 00:01:40,360 why there is why there is not a more of the equality of combatants. 17 00:01:40,840 --> 00:01:48,820 Geoff McMahon So in the second part of the talks I will explicitly deal with some objections to my position. 18 00:01:49,300 --> 00:01:58,600 Jeff has advanced. Now let me start by, by giving the basics. 19 00:01:58,690 --> 00:02:05,829 So one argument and this this argument has actually also already been advanced in the way by, 20 00:02:05,830 --> 00:02:16,690 by grotius one argument is that there cannot be justified defence against a just or justified attack. 21 00:02:17,860 --> 00:02:23,350 So Jeff McMahan says that since, for example, 22 00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:33,810 a criminal cannot is not allowed to defend himself against the justified attack or defensive, the attack may be of a police officer. 23 00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:42,250 So also, it's not it's not clear why combatants on the unjustified side of a war should be allowed to defend 24 00:02:42,250 --> 00:02:49,300 themselves against the justified to adjust the text of of the of the combatants on the other side. 25 00:02:50,650 --> 00:02:59,320 Now, this this is maybe intuitively quite plausible, as long as we only consider that to involve combatants. 26 00:02:59,410 --> 00:03:04,600 But my argument is that once we consider bystanders, this is not bystanders. 27 00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:07,569 It's not that clear any more at all. 28 00:03:07,570 --> 00:03:18,100 Because also the so-called justified combatants or the combatants on the justified side will in most wars pose unjust threats to innocent bystanders. 29 00:03:18,100 --> 00:03:24,579 For example, the soldiers on the unjustified side might be engaged in the bombing raids against an ammunitions factory, 30 00:03:24,580 --> 00:03:30,219 but the side effect of the attack on the munitions factory would be the so-called collateral damage, 31 00:03:30,220 --> 00:03:34,030 or, as I prefer to say, the concomitant slaughter of innocent bystanders. 32 00:03:35,140 --> 00:03:40,560 So they would actually pose an unjust threat to those innocent bystanders. 33 00:03:40,570 --> 00:03:52,510 And Jeff agrees. He says the the rights of the innocent bystanders would be violated and as given to how he once formulated his position, 34 00:03:52,510 --> 00:03:59,440 it would actually logically follow that then these justified soldiers become liable 35 00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:05,919 to attack because liability to attack consists according to early formulation. 36 00:04:05,920 --> 00:04:13,740 Self-defence consists in moral responsibility for posing an unjust threat, and they would post in an unjust threat. 37 00:04:14,020 --> 00:04:20,110 But he has then later on revised his theory, stating that justification defeats liability. 38 00:04:20,410 --> 00:04:31,480 So he now thinks that if the combatants on the justified side are, you know, except take justified, they cannot be liable to attack. 39 00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:41,890 Just just a side remark. That argument in itself could appear to be a little bit question begging because 40 00:04:42,280 --> 00:04:46,720 make man if he wants to establish an inequality between the combatants, 41 00:04:47,050 --> 00:04:55,090 he must assume already that the combatants on the unjustified collective side rights on the collective, 42 00:04:55,090 --> 00:05:00,610 that wages and unjustified war that the individual combatants cannot be justified. 43 00:05:01,070 --> 00:05:04,160 In waging that war too, for his argument worked. 44 00:05:04,430 --> 00:05:07,190 But this is the kind of what this whole issue is about. 45 00:05:07,200 --> 00:05:14,960 So it seems to be a sort of question begging to assume right away that combatants on the on the unjustified collective side cannot be justified. 46 00:05:15,250 --> 00:05:20,329 It might sound crazy. How can somebody who was fighting on the Indian justified side be justified? 47 00:05:20,330 --> 00:05:21,980 But it's actually not crazy at all. 48 00:05:22,490 --> 00:05:31,610 My my standing example that I give and some people say I should revisit with consideration to Texans, but I will not revise it. 49 00:05:31,610 --> 00:05:38,299 Now, my standard example is, is it supposed to go through the streets of Berlin somewhere? 50 00:05:38,300 --> 00:05:45,230 And there's a group there, a group of neo-Nazis, in the process of bashing some foreigners to death. 51 00:05:45,470 --> 00:05:48,650 Right. And you pass by and you say you cannot do anything. 52 00:05:48,650 --> 00:05:55,220 You see, you cannot do anything about it. If you would personally intervene, all that would happen is you would be killed by the neo-Nazis. 53 00:05:55,400 --> 00:06:00,680 However, there happens to be a group of Texans nearby Texan tourists, and, you know, 54 00:06:00,680 --> 00:06:05,839 they would get the job done so you could go up to them and tell me tell them, 55 00:06:05,840 --> 00:06:12,829 you know, I helped me in saving the innocent bystanders from the bad neo-Nazis and the Texans style, you know, problem. 56 00:06:12,830 --> 00:06:17,330 But, you know, we are Texans. When we engage in violence, it's always excessive. 57 00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:24,560 And second, we won't do it without you, you know, so that, you know, later on complain about our excessive violence from the sidelines. 58 00:06:25,040 --> 00:06:28,159 And so in this and this opportunity, in this location, 59 00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:36,280 all you can do is either do nothing and let the the innocent people be killed by the neo-Nazis or you can join the Texans. 60 00:06:36,280 --> 00:06:47,329 So ever since they would accept to be involved in excessive violence, this collective violence would be unjustified because it's excessive. 61 00:06:47,330 --> 00:06:51,740 Right. But your personal participation would be justified because it's the lesser evil. 62 00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:57,080 So it is. It is quite and I mean, this this is true for a lot of contexts. 63 00:06:57,090 --> 00:06:59,360 It's not just to do with contexts of violence, 64 00:06:59,360 --> 00:07:08,150 but this is just a general rule that participation in an unjustified collective act is not automatically unjustified on the individual level. 65 00:07:10,220 --> 00:07:10,610 Okay. 66 00:07:10,610 --> 00:07:26,930 Now, my my argument has now been, as I say, pointed out that the combatants on the unjustified or on the justified side would pose an unjust threat. 67 00:07:28,610 --> 00:07:37,820 Let me now say a little bit maybe about liability to to attack in in general. 68 00:07:39,590 --> 00:07:49,159 I follow to a certain degree Judy Jarvis Thompson's account to Judy Jarvis Thompson has argued that you become she doesn't use the term liable, 69 00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:57,860 but she says that you can for to your rights not to be attacked by violating the rights of other people. 70 00:07:58,550 --> 00:08:05,960 So if the unjust attack violates the rights of other persons, then he becomes liable to attack. 71 00:08:07,160 --> 00:08:13,819 She, however, thinks also that so-called innocent attackers or innocent threats can be. 72 00:08:13,820 --> 00:08:19,400 I just use a term they'll be liable to attack. An innocent attacker would be somebody who has taken drugs. 73 00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:28,400 Unbeknown to him has taken drugs. And this now, you know, causes a psychotic break or something and therefore use attacking unjustly another person. 74 00:08:29,510 --> 00:08:34,700 And they are already a certain doubt would appear whether somebody who was 75 00:08:34,700 --> 00:08:38,960 not really a responsible actor can actually violate another person's rights. 76 00:08:39,350 --> 00:08:46,980 But still still a stronger doubts would appear if you have a so-called innocent threat like Robert not seeks. 77 00:08:47,090 --> 00:08:51,200 Fame is falling man. There's a falling fed man. 78 00:08:51,200 --> 00:08:56,650 He falls from some cliff and he's about to crash an innocent bystander below and on. 79 00:08:56,660 --> 00:09:02,840 In most jurisdictions in the world, the innocent bystander below would actually be justified in using defensive measures. 80 00:09:03,590 --> 00:09:10,760 For example, if he has some kind of gun, he could vaporise the falling man in order to save his own life. 81 00:09:11,390 --> 00:09:16,310 In most jurisdictions, this would be clearly justified, and most people think that it's also, 82 00:09:16,310 --> 00:09:20,600 from a moral point of view, plausible to think that that is justified. 83 00:09:20,870 --> 00:09:34,669 However, the crux here is that many people think that you can only violate rights by actions you wouldn't say of a falling boulder that he violates, 84 00:09:34,670 --> 00:09:41,270 or that the boulder violates a person's rights. And people then think that you cannot say of a falling man if he's not acting, 85 00:09:41,270 --> 00:09:47,990 but just falling something is happening to the man, actually, that this man violates a person's rights. 86 00:09:49,190 --> 00:09:53,300 And this is where then I part. 87 00:09:53,410 --> 00:09:58,550 I find this criticism quite convincing, actually, just semantically quite convincing. 88 00:09:58,910 --> 00:10:10,160 And he had just. Waste with with Thomas and say that you can not only become liable to attack by violating another person's right, 89 00:10:10,160 --> 00:10:15,709 but also by purpose, by posing an unjust threat to to that person's right. 90 00:10:15,710 --> 00:10:22,220 An unjust threat. Here means that one does not have a right to post the threat. 91 00:10:22,220 --> 00:10:30,350 One is posing. Posing. And the thing that is posing this threat has not been set in motion by someone who had the right to do so. 92 00:10:30,590 --> 00:10:37,010 So the following men does not have a right, you know, to crush the person below which which is pretty much obvious. 93 00:10:37,010 --> 00:10:40,040 If you could just deflect that person that was clearly be allowed. 94 00:10:40,400 --> 00:10:43,700 And in this situation, you have a clash of rights. 95 00:10:44,750 --> 00:10:52,159 What is in my in my view, very often overlooked by by philosophers like Jeff McMahon or also David Roden, 96 00:10:52,160 --> 00:10:57,920 is they say, oh, you cannot just lose the rights by by not doing anything. 97 00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:02,809 You have to do something in order to lose the right, you know. And then they say, oh, the pool falling, man. 98 00:11:02,810 --> 00:11:09,200 He has he hasn't done anything. And therefore he cannot has lost his right to life and is a claim right to self-defence. 99 00:11:10,730 --> 00:11:16,040 But on the other hand, then there is the poor man standing below is forgetting. 100 00:11:16,040 --> 00:11:21,590 This man has also done nothing to lose his right to life or his right to self-defence. 101 00:11:21,860 --> 00:11:28,969 And my view is that in this situation and where you have a clash of rights, of general rights or self-defence, 102 00:11:28,970 --> 00:11:36,830 so to say they cannot coexist anymore as rights, that would be a logical contradiction and they transfer themselves into liberties. 103 00:11:37,490 --> 00:11:45,710 I explain in a second what that is. And liberties can co-exist with each other, to give you an everyday example. 104 00:11:46,400 --> 00:11:52,700 I mean that the terminology I use as a whole, the whole Feldman basically and whole Feld has says coined this terminology. 105 00:11:53,120 --> 00:11:57,860 It is a whole Feldman terminology and hausfeld distinguishes between claim rights. 106 00:11:58,160 --> 00:12:01,760 And unless otherwise stated. When I say right, I always mean claim rights. 107 00:12:02,060 --> 00:12:05,990 So he distinguishes between claim rights on the one hand and liberty rights on the other. 108 00:12:06,380 --> 00:12:17,210 Now, if they have a claim right to do something, that means that other persons have a duty and not to interfere in my exercising this right. 109 00:12:18,380 --> 00:12:28,640 So if I have a claim rights, you know, to to get this glass of water, then other persons are not allowed to interfere in my action. 110 00:12:28,640 --> 00:12:33,260 And if I have a claim, right, to hit another person, for example, to kill another person, 111 00:12:33,590 --> 00:12:39,960 this would imply that this other person is under duty, not not to interfere. 112 00:12:39,980 --> 00:12:48,360 Right. But of course, you can have clearly situations where I am under have a liberty to hit a person wide. 113 00:12:48,380 --> 00:12:51,470 That is means I am not under a duty not to hit a person. 114 00:12:51,800 --> 00:12:58,390 Why the other person still retains her liberty to hit me back or to interfere there. 115 00:12:59,200 --> 00:13:02,180 The common situation would be the example of two boxers. 116 00:13:02,690 --> 00:13:10,210 They don't have claim rights against each other to hit each other because claim rights are not compatible logically, but they have liberties. 117 00:13:10,250 --> 00:13:15,799 So both of them don't violated duty by by hitting the other person. 118 00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:21,740 And they don't violated duty by trying the other person from from keeping them from hitting them. 119 00:13:21,890 --> 00:13:25,070 So liberties are just, just different. 120 00:13:25,950 --> 00:13:30,859 And a couple of people somehow claim that this this is not consistent. 121 00:13:30,860 --> 00:13:36,829 But in my view, this is this is not only consistent, it's actually a analytical truth. 122 00:13:36,830 --> 00:13:41,030 If you apply the terminology of what's the whole felt, which I simply do, 123 00:13:43,280 --> 00:13:49,849 I we can I just wanted to make this clear because sometimes there's a problem that 124 00:13:49,850 --> 00:13:54,710 these distinctions between liberty and claim rights are very often forgotten. 125 00:13:54,980 --> 00:14:03,860 And then people talk about rights and see inconsistencies because they just don't make the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights. 126 00:14:04,040 --> 00:14:12,440 Or sometimes they use the term rights for a claim, right? Then sometimes it's liberty rights and these confusions should be avoided. 127 00:14:13,610 --> 00:14:20,570 Now, how do how do people in a justified war violate the rights of others? 128 00:14:20,630 --> 00:14:25,760 Well, one thing is, of course, I mentioned it already by directly killing innocent bystanders. 129 00:14:26,360 --> 00:14:29,960 And of course, collateral damage is still directly killing. 130 00:14:30,110 --> 00:14:35,360 It would only be indirect. These examples are sometimes given by Tony Goudy. 131 00:14:35,480 --> 00:14:41,990 You could perhaps say an indirect killing is if I bop a drum on that ammunitions factory and then the 132 00:14:41,990 --> 00:14:48,790 bomb makes the wall fall off the ammunition factory and the wall falls on the on an innocent bystander. 133 00:14:48,800 --> 00:14:53,900 That is maybe indirect killing, but dropping a bump on a bump on persons. 134 00:14:53,900 --> 00:14:58,910 And this bump shredding the persons to pieces is certainly a form of direct killing. 135 00:14:58,910 --> 00:15:05,090 Right. So one thing. You can do is killing a person directly, although it might be collaterally, 136 00:15:05,110 --> 00:15:13,150 but that is still direct and you might directly impose also risks on them of being killed in this way. 137 00:15:14,290 --> 00:15:19,959 But this has been pointed out by by Sessler and others, also by Jeff, actually. 138 00:15:19,960 --> 00:15:28,330 And one idea is that not all combatants on the justified sides and by the way, 139 00:15:28,330 --> 00:15:34,960 on the unjustified side either are actually posing threats in this way to innocent bystanders. 140 00:15:35,230 --> 00:15:39,940 A lot of them will at best contribute to posing threats. 141 00:15:39,940 --> 00:15:46,840 And in my view, it's it is important to see that this can be quite sufficient. 142 00:15:48,460 --> 00:15:53,680 Let me give you an example. Outside of the vortex context, let's say the jackal. 143 00:15:53,710 --> 00:15:59,860 You know, this serial, this this famous killer of the novel, The Jackal wants to kill an innocent bystander. 144 00:16:00,160 --> 00:16:10,240 And there's Alex somewhere who has to march there, the victim or the target for the Jackal, so that the Knowles, whom he has to kill. 145 00:16:10,540 --> 00:16:16,959 And he's doing that in that case. You know, jurisdictions in most Western countries, actually, so far as I know, 146 00:16:16,960 --> 00:16:21,550 in all Western countries, would say that this is participation in a crime. 147 00:16:21,850 --> 00:16:29,650 So the person who marks the target for the Jackal would participate in in this crime of killing the innocent bystander. 148 00:16:30,130 --> 00:16:34,810 However, it is not necessary. That is, he causally contributes. 149 00:16:35,470 --> 00:16:45,580 So even for example, if it's not, if actually, you know, there was no causal necessity for him to put this mark and even actually, 150 00:16:45,580 --> 00:16:57,080 if the Jackal might not even have seen this mark, the the accomplice put on the target, he would still be considered as a as a participant. 151 00:16:57,340 --> 00:17:04,720 You see this from bank robberies. You know, if somebody is standing outside and and watching out for the police coming, 152 00:17:04,870 --> 00:17:11,350 even if that in the end has not played a causal role and the robbery might have gone along anyway, 153 00:17:11,590 --> 00:17:17,110 he would still be held liable in most jurisdictions as somebody who participated in the bank robbery. 154 00:17:17,500 --> 00:17:28,840 So so this is just to deflate Sessler and others very that and that just too few people would be actually liable to attack. 155 00:17:28,870 --> 00:17:33,280 I think that's not necessary if you take accomplices into account. 156 00:17:34,870 --> 00:17:41,319 This is participation. And other thing is what I call a culpable contribution. 157 00:17:41,320 --> 00:17:49,150 For example, if somebody full well knowing that the Jackal wants to kill an innocent person sells the Jackal a weapon to do it, 158 00:17:49,450 --> 00:17:53,709 that would be in most jurisdictions clearly a culpable contribution. 159 00:17:53,710 --> 00:17:57,070 It would gnosis not necessarily be considered participation. 160 00:17:57,070 --> 00:18:04,060 That depends a little bit on on the jurisdictions, but I make this distinction between participation and culpable contribution. 161 00:18:04,540 --> 00:18:07,869 And then you have, you know, innocent contribution. 162 00:18:07,870 --> 00:18:12,760 And two examples would be a, you know, a woman, a restaurant owner, 163 00:18:12,780 --> 00:18:18,609 a cook full well knowing that the Jekyll is out to kill somebody cooks a meal for the Jekyll. 164 00:18:18,610 --> 00:18:25,120 She has not the possibility to call the police to anything. All she's doing is cooking him a meal and he goes out and kill somebody. 165 00:18:25,270 --> 00:18:30,280 Now she would not be liable. In Western you were addictions as in participation of a crime. 166 00:18:30,730 --> 00:18:42,219 And if somebody lets this, the son of this of this woman sold the ammunition without knowing that the Jekyll is somebody who uses to kill innocent 167 00:18:42,220 --> 00:18:48,520 person or that there's a high probability that he might do so would also be innocent in Western jurisdictions. 168 00:18:49,720 --> 00:18:57,130 And you can you can transform this or you can apply this distinction reasonably well to the war situation. 169 00:18:57,370 --> 00:18:59,829 You have people who directly kill innocent persons. 170 00:18:59,830 --> 00:19:07,390 Then you have people who participate in the in the collective efforts in a collective war effort that kills innocent persons by, 171 00:19:07,570 --> 00:19:14,530 for example, maintaining the weaponry. This would be the analogy maybe of of of marking the target for the jackal. 172 00:19:14,860 --> 00:19:21,580 And then you have persons who culpably contribute by providing the weaponry for while knowing what will happen with it. 173 00:19:21,970 --> 00:19:29,530 And you have then persons who are not responsible at all because they just, you know, provide food for the army. 174 00:19:29,540 --> 00:19:32,860 There might be some subsidy about Cecil Farmer, for example, 175 00:19:33,430 --> 00:19:38,799 would say that there are ways of of providing food to the army that might make them liable to attack. 176 00:19:38,800 --> 00:19:46,480 And I actually agree. But in my view, there are also ways of providing food for the army that would not make them liable to attack. 177 00:19:47,650 --> 00:19:49,600 And that can be people, you know, 178 00:19:49,600 --> 00:20:00,340 like the Guatemala taking that's my example there got to my taking school product some fabric some fabric some working in the fabric when. 179 00:20:00,370 --> 00:20:04,649 The factory who produces screws for well knowing that they might be used. 180 00:20:04,650 --> 00:20:07,410 There's a certain possibility that there might be use. 181 00:20:07,590 --> 00:20:13,590 Well, Gaddafi is dead now, but at that time Gaddafi was making some might be used by Gadhafi's troops to fight, 182 00:20:13,590 --> 00:20:17,760 you know, the revolution and unmake man's account. 183 00:20:17,760 --> 00:20:20,170 And it's very difficult for him to get out of this. 184 00:20:20,190 --> 00:20:28,770 It seems on McMahon's account, it would be this cruel producer would be liable to attack if there is a chance that by attacking him, 185 00:20:29,490 --> 00:20:36,390 you might you know, you might further the just causes, let's say, of the revolution. 186 00:20:36,400 --> 00:20:41,700 Right. But on my account, which I think is more plausible, intuitively more plausible, 187 00:20:41,700 --> 00:20:47,010 this person is not yet liable to attack the that the distances is just too big. 188 00:20:51,630 --> 00:20:58,710 Okay. This is this is the basic. This is a basic outline maybe of liability to attack. 189 00:20:58,780 --> 00:21:03,730 And note that I have not really tried to give specific criteria. 190 00:21:03,750 --> 00:21:07,350 What distinguishes participation from culpable contribution? 191 00:21:07,560 --> 00:21:13,110 I think this is really very difficult, but it's also not necessarily done in case law. 192 00:21:13,470 --> 00:21:17,240 So I don't think you need for everything clear criteria. 193 00:21:17,250 --> 00:21:22,170 It seems to be impossible, for example, to give you a definition or to give you clear criteria. 194 00:21:22,350 --> 00:21:30,030 How do I distinguish green from reds? You just cannot write a definition, but most people can distinguish green from red. 195 00:21:30,210 --> 00:21:36,690 And as long as they do so, then rules that rely on this distinction can work. 196 00:21:36,690 --> 00:21:41,100 Like, you know, you are allowed to walk if it's green and you have to stand still if it reds. 197 00:21:41,310 --> 00:21:45,480 I don't have to define it as long as people know the difference. That's that's good enough. 198 00:21:46,080 --> 00:21:52,200 Of course, I don't deny that there are grey zones where I don't exactly know if it's still red or is it's already green 199 00:21:52,200 --> 00:21:57,960 or something like it's still participation or is it's already something less like capital contribution. 200 00:21:58,230 --> 00:22:04,800 But I think the distinctions work well enough without having, you know, completely clear cut criteria. 201 00:22:06,900 --> 00:22:16,590 Okay. Now, Jeff's advanced several objections to this, and I will not actually go through through all these objections. 202 00:22:18,420 --> 00:22:23,190 His most important objection is that justification defeats liability rights. 203 00:22:23,490 --> 00:22:27,990 And I had to early on pointed out that that seems to me to be an ad hoc claim. 204 00:22:28,140 --> 00:22:34,620 Why does justification defeat liability? And then Jeff said, Well, it does so in criminal law. 205 00:22:35,070 --> 00:22:38,910 Right. So if you're justified, then you are not liable to punishment. 206 00:22:38,940 --> 00:22:45,360 That's true. But it's also beside the point, which Jeff actually acknowledges, because that's not what we are talking about. 207 00:22:45,360 --> 00:22:49,830 We are not talking about liability to punishment, but liability to defensive attack. 208 00:22:50,490 --> 00:22:57,930 And it's clearly and Jeff admits this now, it's clearly not the case that in the law, justification generally defeats liability. 209 00:22:58,770 --> 00:23:02,759 For example, he now says that, for example, 210 00:23:02,760 --> 00:23:10,020 the tactical bomba who bombs the ammunition factories full well knowing that this will also kill innocent bystanders, 211 00:23:10,230 --> 00:23:19,560 is allowed to do this, allowed to kill the innocent bystanders and a necessity defence rights and necessity defence as you have in law. 212 00:23:19,950 --> 00:23:25,320 But necessity defences in law are the paradigm example for justifications. 213 00:23:25,410 --> 00:23:28,890 The necessity defence is in most jurisdictions have justification. 214 00:23:29,100 --> 00:23:33,630 They are parody time example for justification that does not defeat liability. 215 00:23:33,900 --> 00:23:40,230 This is shown by the fact that, for example, somebody wears a necessity defence, for example, to break in somebody else's house. 216 00:23:40,560 --> 00:23:46,140 Maybe he's, he's dying, you see, he's about to have a heart attack and he knows in this other person's health, this, 217 00:23:46,440 --> 00:23:53,040 that's a medicine that can save him, then he would in many restrictions have a necessity defence to break in. 218 00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:57,290 So he would be justified under the law to do this and he would not be punished. 219 00:23:57,630 --> 00:24:04,560 However, he would be still liable to pay the person whose right he has violated, namely the owner of the house compensation. 220 00:24:05,100 --> 00:24:13,770 So he's still liable to do that. In light of this, Jeff has then backed off and claimed, well, okay, 221 00:24:13,770 --> 00:24:22,380 I admit justification in law does not defeat liability, but justification does defeat liability to defensive attack. 222 00:24:22,500 --> 00:24:25,500 Right. But that's now completely ad hoc. 223 00:24:25,500 --> 00:24:36,230 You know, he could have claimed or my my former argument was not a talk because I had the general argument that justification defeats liability. 224 00:24:36,240 --> 00:24:44,880 And I point out, no, it doesn't. And then Jeff says, well, but at least it does in the case of liability to defence if attacked by defensive killing. 225 00:24:45,120 --> 00:24:48,899 But that's of course precisely the issue in question. 226 00:24:48,900 --> 00:24:52,740 Whether it does or whether it does not to just claim it does is not sufficient. 227 00:24:52,740 --> 00:24:57,060 One would need an argument to show that it does, and I don't see any argument. 228 00:24:57,480 --> 00:25:02,000 And on the contrary, if you look and I won't. Go to the legal debates. 229 00:25:02,010 --> 00:25:08,970 Now they've got a lead too far. But in the US American law, it seems really to be at least you can make a very, very strong argument. 230 00:25:09,210 --> 00:25:17,170 It seems to be the case if, for example, you take the model penal code into account who was rendering of necessity defence. 231 00:25:17,170 --> 00:25:20,940 This has also been adopted by some US states. 232 00:25:21,180 --> 00:25:30,330 If you take the model a legal code into account, it's clear that you can, for example, have a necessity defence to kill persons rights. 233 00:25:30,660 --> 00:25:36,780 But the Model Penal Code claims that you would still be liable at least to pay, 234 00:25:37,560 --> 00:25:48,930 and then compensation may be filed for the people for for the for the children or the kin of the person you killed for wrongful death. 235 00:25:48,960 --> 00:25:55,560 Right. And in addition, a legal scholar called Christie, 236 00:25:55,560 --> 00:26:06,070 he makes the argument that he does not see any American court who would claim that somebody who defends himself against this attacker, 237 00:26:06,090 --> 00:26:14,250 who has a necessity defence to attack you. He says he cannot see any any court in the U.S. saying that the attacker would have 238 00:26:14,460 --> 00:26:20,820 to pay compensation to the children of of the that the defender I mean the innocent 239 00:26:20,820 --> 00:26:25,620 person would have to pay compensation to the children of the attacker in case that 240 00:26:25,620 --> 00:26:30,120 he can actually defend himself against the attacker successfully by killing him. 241 00:26:30,480 --> 00:26:38,010 So the idea is there is, according to Christi, that you have a more or less symmetry or legal asymmetry in this case in place. 242 00:26:38,400 --> 00:26:46,380 And this would be precisely how McMahon, at least more recently, defines liability. 243 00:26:46,390 --> 00:26:54,510 So if there is this symmetry, if that justified attacker can be killed justly by the defender, 244 00:26:54,990 --> 00:27:07,980 then while the other way around that person who has a necessity defence cannot kill the person towards which he's using this necessity defence justly. 245 00:27:08,220 --> 00:27:15,690 Then you again have this kind of more or less symmetry that would show that one person is liable and the other person is not. 246 00:27:16,590 --> 00:27:22,760 So the point that justification defeats liability is just not particularly plausible. 247 00:27:22,770 --> 00:27:28,679 And by the way, also, apart from the legal side, not shared by too many philosophers, I mean friends of come, 248 00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:36,210 for example, it's very clear about the fact that justification does not defeat liability in this way. 249 00:27:39,060 --> 00:27:48,260 Now, Jeff has tried to cause me problems with alleged counterintuitive implications. 250 00:27:48,270 --> 00:27:55,950 My my account would have and I will not go through this because I think, Jeff, 251 00:27:55,950 --> 00:28:00,450 in order to ascribe these implications to me, has to ascribe assumptions to me. 252 00:28:00,450 --> 00:28:10,590 I simply do not make. And second, some of the of the arguments rely on the confusion between liberty rights and claim rights. 253 00:28:11,910 --> 00:28:18,719 And quite frankly, it's very complicated. And I'm not sure that you can really orally explained as well. 254 00:28:18,720 --> 00:28:25,320 I think you have to see in this to see this in writing. So at the moment, well, you don't have to take my word for it, 255 00:28:25,320 --> 00:28:32,730 but I think the implications charging me with counter intuitive implications does not really work. 256 00:28:33,360 --> 00:28:38,550 On the other hand, I cannot resist to point out that Jeff's own position, 257 00:28:38,970 --> 00:28:47,310 that liability to attack lies in being morally responsible for an unjustified threat. 258 00:28:47,820 --> 00:28:52,950 The moral responsibility for an unjustified threat comes with certain counter-intuitive assumptions. 259 00:28:53,280 --> 00:28:59,589 He gives himself one example, and he doesn't really, you know, solve the problem. 260 00:28:59,590 --> 00:29:02,790 He he's he's honest and states that's really a problem. 261 00:29:02,790 --> 00:29:11,819 And he's now trying actually to move on. But he's in between he has not yet provided an account that would solve the problem. 262 00:29:11,820 --> 00:29:20,310 And the problem is this, he says, well, suppose there is a mother, for example, and a mother can say she's giving birth. 263 00:29:20,640 --> 00:29:23,820 And of course, there's a reasonable chance there is some chance, 264 00:29:23,820 --> 00:29:30,470 at least foreseeable chance that your your son or daughter might turn out to be a killer and unjustly kill some person. 265 00:29:30,480 --> 00:29:35,160 Right. And on his accounts, it would in his account as its formula, 266 00:29:35,160 --> 00:29:44,070 it was actually follow that in a situation where now this this this danger materialises and the son is about to kill an innocent bystander. 267 00:29:44,640 --> 00:29:51,000 This innocent bystander would be allowed to save her own life by somehow using the mother. 268 00:29:51,300 --> 00:30:00,180 For example, if in that situation, 20 years after giving birth, he would the the attack person would be able to defend herself or to have. 269 00:30:00,380 --> 00:30:05,810 The threat of the sun by killing the mother. He would be allowed to do that. 270 00:30:06,200 --> 00:30:10,760 And Geoff admits that's counter-intuitive and I agree it's completely counter-intuitive. 271 00:30:10,940 --> 00:30:13,280 Why my account where, you know, 272 00:30:13,280 --> 00:30:21,709 you become liable to attack by posing an unjust threat to another person in the way I have described and the obvious way, 273 00:30:21,710 --> 00:30:27,890 what the most obvious way would be by violating the other person's rights can deal with this problem. 274 00:30:27,890 --> 00:30:34,790 And the problem doesn't even arise because the mother, by giving birth, doesn't violate anybody's rights at all. 275 00:30:35,060 --> 00:30:42,080 And when the son finally attacks somebody, she's also not violating anybody, which provides that the son is doing it right. 276 00:30:42,320 --> 00:30:45,620 So I don't have this problem. And Jeff tries not to to fix it somehow. 277 00:30:45,830 --> 00:30:58,129 But my to be honest, my my and my prediction is that he cannot solve this problem without really completely revising his sole account. 278 00:30:58,130 --> 00:31:01,280 And I'm not sure how much what will be kept of it. 279 00:31:01,730 --> 00:31:11,780 And what's more important, I have somehow a feeling I might be wrong, that it would be very close to the accounts of rights violations I have. 280 00:31:12,950 --> 00:31:22,129 I have stated with modifications. I mean, he doesn't like a count of rights violations or an account of of liability where innocent threats are. 281 00:31:22,130 --> 00:31:25,370 Innocent attackers could also be killed. But he could prevent this. 282 00:31:25,370 --> 00:31:27,829 But on the side where you have only rights violations, 283 00:31:27,830 --> 00:31:34,010 I wouldn't I would somehow anticipate that there wouldn't be a great difference between his account and mine. 284 00:31:36,980 --> 00:31:43,040 Okay. So far, so good. Let me. 285 00:31:44,300 --> 00:31:50,090 Well, I think I should actually come to the end. Let me let me say what all this implies and does not apply. 286 00:31:50,120 --> 00:31:57,620 Now, I have said that you can make the argument that due to the fact that the soldiers on 287 00:31:57,620 --> 00:32:02,839 the unjustified in most modern wars are posting unjust threats to innocent bystanders, 288 00:32:02,840 --> 00:32:04,340 they are liable to attack. 289 00:32:04,340 --> 00:32:13,190 And liable to attack, in this sense means that the combatants on the on the unjustified sites could kill them without wronging them. 290 00:32:13,190 --> 00:32:16,190 Right. So if they kill them, they have not violated their rights. 291 00:32:16,460 --> 00:32:22,490 That's what liability means as as Jeff and I and others use the term. 292 00:32:22,490 --> 00:32:32,380 So if somebody is liable to attack, you can attack this person without violating the presence right now from this itself, it doesn't follow. 293 00:32:32,720 --> 00:32:36,320 That's permissible to attack the person. There's a difference. 294 00:32:36,920 --> 00:32:43,280 And the difference is a little bit the mirror sides of a distinction that is sometimes made the other way around. 295 00:32:43,280 --> 00:32:45,800 For example, with the necessity defence. 296 00:32:46,130 --> 00:32:56,990 The necessity defence basically states that you can under certain circumstances, violate a person's rights and be justified in doing it right. 297 00:32:57,410 --> 00:33:01,729 But you can also have that's now not necessity justifications, but that's what I say. 298 00:33:01,730 --> 00:33:08,209 You can also have the country position, namely that you can have situations where you can't do something, 299 00:33:08,210 --> 00:33:15,230 for example, hurt a person without violating the person's rights but still not be permitted in doing it. 300 00:33:15,710 --> 00:33:27,770 And examples are obvious. You know, if let's say let's say if somebody attacks me and, you know, tries to slap me, then I would normally be justified. 301 00:33:28,160 --> 00:33:32,690 Not only justified, I would he would become liable to my counterattacks. 302 00:33:32,690 --> 00:33:39,380 So if I could stop him by slapping him first, I would be not only allowed to do it, but it would be just right. 303 00:33:39,500 --> 00:33:42,260 So I wouldn't the person couldn't complain about it. 304 00:33:42,590 --> 00:33:49,070 Now suppose that I know that if I would react in this way to the attack of this person was trying to slap me. 305 00:33:49,460 --> 00:33:56,960 And I know that if that happens, a super villain will blow up a kindergarten to take the extreme example and that this circumstance, 306 00:33:56,960 --> 00:34:02,570 it seems to me that I would not be permitted in defending myself against the attacker. 307 00:34:02,780 --> 00:34:07,070 If I do defend myself. Well, I don't wrong him because he's an unjust attacker. 308 00:34:07,340 --> 00:34:14,440 But of course, I have to take the bigger picture into account. And the bigger picture is, you know, just saving my life. 309 00:34:14,480 --> 00:34:20,930 A slap on the face is not it's not so important that I should allow a kindergarten to be blown up. 310 00:34:21,620 --> 00:34:32,360 So so my argument my argument that you have this equal liberty rights of combatants on both sides in modern wars does not imply, 311 00:34:32,570 --> 00:34:37,760 you know, this this facile conclusion that you can happily now take part in every war. 312 00:34:38,270 --> 00:34:43,909 It only makes, you know, the the decisions you have to make somewhat more difficult, by the way, 313 00:34:43,910 --> 00:34:48,560 and this is kind of important for me, because it seems to be constantly overlooked. 314 00:34:48,950 --> 00:34:57,560 And by the way, on the other hand, that you can party, that you participate, or that you can justifiably participate, not that that's wrong. 315 00:34:57,890 --> 00:35:09,520 On the other hand, the fact that. Soldiers on the so-called justified sides can kill combatants on the unjustified side justly. 316 00:35:09,970 --> 00:35:14,110 That's also not necessarily mean that they are permitted to do it. 317 00:35:14,290 --> 00:35:18,790 While the obvious example would be again, like, you know, the kindergarten example, 318 00:35:18,790 --> 00:35:26,409 but just blown into a bigger dimension, seeing all the state of humanity and the survival of humanity is at stake. 319 00:35:26,410 --> 00:35:35,170 Or something like this. If the just soldiers or the just justified soldiers would actually attack the unjustified soldiers, something terrible. 320 00:35:35,170 --> 00:35:41,739 What's happened, the planet would blow up. But even even if you forget about that, just to say as a conceptual possibility. 321 00:35:41,740 --> 00:35:52,479 But even if you forget about this, I think very often maybe if you look at humanitarian interventions, of course, you you save a lot of lives. 322 00:35:52,480 --> 00:35:56,020 Maybe if you commit if you engage in humanitarian intervention. 323 00:35:56,200 --> 00:36:00,160 But these interventions cost really, really a lot of money. 324 00:36:00,250 --> 00:36:04,600 Right. And the question is, could you not use this lot of money better? 325 00:36:04,600 --> 00:36:14,140 So if by your humanitarian intervention, you would save your spent X amount of money, x money units and you're safe with your war. 326 00:36:14,170 --> 00:36:24,670 Maybe 30,000 people from genocides, but you could with these X money you units if you give it to Oxfam save 2 million people from starving. 327 00:36:25,090 --> 00:36:29,470 It is not that clear to me that you are permitted in taking part in the justified war. 328 00:36:30,040 --> 00:36:38,680 So by the way, this seems to me also a certain kind of indication that justifying humanitarian wars might be more difficult than many people assume. 329 00:36:39,580 --> 00:36:46,660 But but that I really want to make clear that I'm not trying to fall back on some kind of world zarian position. 330 00:36:47,620 --> 00:36:51,219 My argument is very much different than from Walt's Walter's argument. 331 00:36:51,220 --> 00:36:55,330 What's a basically first? I don't think his argument is a justification. 332 00:36:55,330 --> 00:36:57,850 And Jeff has really pointed this very clearly out, 333 00:36:57,850 --> 00:37:06,490 that Walter's argument cannot reasonably read as a justification of the soldiers on the unjustified side for killing their soldiers. 334 00:37:06,500 --> 00:37:14,979 On the on the justified side. There's some kind of general tendency of just excusing the soldiers and say it's okay to just follow the orders. 335 00:37:14,980 --> 00:37:18,730 Right. And I, I disagree with this. 336 00:37:18,730 --> 00:37:22,299 I don't think it's just okay to follow orders on the unjustified side. 337 00:37:22,300 --> 00:37:27,580 Nor do I agree that just okay to follow orders on the justified side. 338 00:37:28,030 --> 00:37:36,130 And of course, my argument thus does not deny the principle point Jeff McMahon and others before him are making, 339 00:37:36,370 --> 00:37:40,149 namely that there's not this general moral equality of combatants. 340 00:37:40,150 --> 00:37:49,900 For example, you could have a war where one side is invading another side's country and unjustly, 341 00:37:50,140 --> 00:37:56,530 and the justified defenders are not actually posing unjust threats to anybody. 342 00:37:57,160 --> 00:38:01,690 You could make an argument while they are still posing unjust threats to their own innocents. 343 00:38:01,690 --> 00:38:09,429 Right. But actually, you have an argument against this where you can use McMahon's own recent article off of 344 00:38:09,430 --> 00:38:14,139 McMahon about the just distribution of harms between combatants and non-combatants, 345 00:38:14,140 --> 00:38:16,150 for example. If so to say, 346 00:38:16,150 --> 00:38:24,370 the defenders are defending the invaded country on behalf of their own citizens and maybe with the conscious consent of their own citizens. 347 00:38:24,610 --> 00:38:27,219 Then it seems to me that even if they are defensive, 348 00:38:27,220 --> 00:38:35,300 actions also endanger their own citizens in concrete manoeuvres and in concrete tactics would not do an injustice to their citizens. 349 00:38:35,320 --> 00:38:42,639 So my point is that in principle the argument is correct you don't have a general moral equality of combatants. 350 00:38:42,640 --> 00:38:51,820 However, McMahon and others really greatly exaggerate the scope of the argument, since in most modern wars and the most wars generally, 351 00:38:51,820 --> 00:38:58,360 probably the soldiers on the unjust, on the justified side pose and thus unjust threats to innocent bystanders. 352 00:38:58,630 --> 00:39:07,120 They are also liable to attack. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. 353 00:39:07,270 --> 00:39:07,480 The.