Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE ( © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 25 July 2021

Abstract and Keywords

Should military personnel (‘soldiers’) become selective conscientious objectors to an unjust war? This chapter argues, first, that in most cases the fog of war and politics makes it unreasonable to expect soldiers to make fact-intensive judgments about whether the war is just. Second, it argues that even a just-war tribunal, of the sort proposed by Jeff McMahan, will not do the job. It will inevitably lack the legitimacy and fact-finding capacity necessary to reassure soldiers in such a weighty decision. Third, the moral importance of maintaining civilian control of the military means that soldiers should generally obey orders to deploy. Fourth, however, absolute deference to leaders and commanders is morally unacceptable. The chapter defends an intermediate view advanced centuries ago by Cajetan, Suárez, and Vitoria: soldiers must not fight in an unjust war, but may defer to civilian leaders’ judgment of just cause unless the injustice is manifest.

Keywords: soldiers, unjust war, selective conscientious objection, civilian control of the military, jus ad bellum, deference, manifest, moral

Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.