Join the conversation
Subscribe to Our Emails
Boston Review is a public space for the discussion of ideas and culture. Sign up for our newsletters and don’t miss a thing.
In her new essay, F. M. Kamm carefully considers problems of proportionality and justice posed by the carnage in Gaza.
Operation Allied Force, Kosovo, 1999. Image: Department of Defense.
Nothing clouds ethical judgment like war. In her new essay, F. M. Kamm carefully considers problems of proportionality and justice posed by the carnage in Gaza. Over the years other Boston Review contributors have chronicled, condemned, and debated "just" and "unjust" wars-—and questioned whether the distinction is even valuable. These pieces try to see through the chaos and understand the ethics and consequences of military action.
In our Summer 1999 issue, Hungarian political scientist G. M. Tamás looked at the centuries-long history of terror and upheaval that led to NATO's war in Kosovo: "This 'just' but 'wrong' war is dividing and destroying the West European left," he wrote. "There may be no attractive solution, but better understanding may help to reduce the current horror."
In our February/March 2000 issue, historians Kieko Matteson and Robert Perkinson documented the legacy of the American bombing of Laos, a campaign whose "combined destructive force . . . was more than 100 times that of the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima," leaving behind a ruined economy, ravaged environment, and land mines that threaten lives to this day.
Political scientist Neta Crawford investigated the criteria for "preemptive war" just before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The "temptation to slide over the line from preemption to preventive war is great," she warns, "because that line is vague and because of the extraordinary stress of living under the threat of terrorist attack or war. But that temptation should be resisted."
In 2012, Georgetown law professor David Luban examined the ethical doctrines of Augustine and Aquinas in the context of today's drone killings, and found that such actions "have to be judged by the same standards of necessity and proportionality applied to warfare in general: sometimes they are justified, sometimes not. There are no simple answers."
Lastly, revisit last summer's forum on the personal ethics of war, led by philosopher Jeff McMahan, who argues that volunteer "soldiers are morally culpable for fighting in unjust wars, and thus deserve the option of selective conscientious objection."
...we need your help. Confronting the many challenges of COVID-19—from the medical to the economic, the social to the political—demands all the moral and deliberative clarity we can muster. In Thinking in a Pandemic, we’ve organized the latest arguments from doctors and epidemiologists, philosophers and economists, legal scholars and historians, activists and citizens, as they think not just through this moment but beyond it. While much remains uncertain, Boston Review’s responsibility to public reason is sure. That’s why you’ll never see a paywall or ads. It also means that we rely on you, our readers, for support. If you like what you read here, pledge your contribution to keep it free for everyone by making a tax-deductible donation.
Vital reading on politics, literature, and more in your inbox
Readers Also Liked
Printing Note: For best printing results try turning on any options your web browser's print dialog makes available for printing backgrounds and background graphics.