Seth Lazar, Philosopher and Photographer

The thesis is in three chapters, each corresponding to a component of the core concept of corrective justice: the first analyses the nature of injury; the second, the method of rectification; and finally, chapter three examines the argument for correlative rectification. The first chapter begins by restricting injuries to violations of rights. It offers an account of the substantive moral content of injury that focuses on the independent disvalues of harm and wrong, before arguing that, when we assign a right, we use the relationship between rights and respect to provide a valued interest with substantive protection. It emphasises that corrective justice is concerned with the private, not the public dimensions of harm and wrong, before defending this analysis against some alternatives, as developed by Ernest Weinrib and Jules Coleman. Continue reading »

Combatants in war lay waste the environment, destroy cultural heritage, wound, maim and kill. Most importantly, they kill. Such acts would in any other context be abhorrent. If warfare is to be permissible, these deeds must first be justified. A potential combatant might reason like this: People have general duties to one another, owed in virtue of their shared humanity. Among these, some are duties of justice, linked to rights held by the duty’s beneficiary. The general duty not to kill is a duty of justice, correlative with the right to life. Breaching the duty, so violating the right, is normally the gravest injustice one can commit. If warfare is to be justified, therefore, either the relevant duties of justice must not apply, or they must be overridden by stronger countervailing reasons. In the first instance warfare is just; in the second it is justified, though unjust.

Most philosophers believe warfare must be just to be justified. This includes Michael Walzer, whose Just and Unjust Wars was the fulcrum of debate in the late twentieth century, and the numerous analytical philosophers who have exposed flaws in Walzer’s arguments—most notable among them, Jeff McMahan. In War and Associative Duties, I argue that this consensus view is mistaken. Wars cannot be fought without breaching grave duties of justice. Part I defends this assertion; part II explores one way in which fighting may nevertheless be justified. Continue reading »