英国学者William H. Shaw学术讲座通知

目前正在香港大学担任富布莱特访问教授（Visiting Fulbright Professor at the University of Hong Kong）的英国学者William H. Shaw，将于6月21日（周四）下午2:00—4:00在四院一楼会议室举办学术讲座，题目是“utilitarianism and the ethics of war”（功利主义与战争伦理学）。附件是讲座提纲，欢迎参加。
William H. Shaw教授于1976年在伦敦大学经济政治学院获得博士学位，现为San Jose State University教授。他的Marx's Theory of History (Stanford University Press, 1978)一书曾译成中文出版（重庆出版社，1989，2007），影响广泛。


Utilitarianism and the Ethics of War

Introduction

I. utilitarian war principle
utilitarianism entails the following principle (UWP):
        a state is morally justified in waging war if and only if
no other course of action available to it would result in greater expected well-being;
        otherwise, waging war is wrong.

if a state is justified in waging war, it is obviously morally permitted to do so. Is it also required?
    ? if and only if  its waging war would result in greater expected well-being than …

utilitarianism vs. consequentialism
some definitional details


II. further aspects or implications of UWP
      1.   asymmetry between cost and benefits

2. fairly specific normative principle of limited domain, which one can accept while rejecting utilitarianism as an overall theory  

      3. many reasons philosophers have for rejecting utilitarianism don’t apply to UWP  

4. UWP is simple, but widespread acceptance would have profound consequences
(a) states often ignore consequences altogether; discount/neglect consequences for other peoples; or focus on non-welfare consequences

(b) rare for either side to have thought through seriously the probable gains/losses


III. some reasons non-consequentialist might accept UWP
(a) they may find it intuitively plausible
(b) tallies with commonsense morality
(c) most non-consequentialists allow role for consequences, especially when choices
     have potential to affect well-being of many in deep and important ways

so they could endorse UWP as an intuitively acceptable, middle-level normative principle
   ● its validity evident upon reflection   ● it coheres well with judgments about specific cases


IV. most common objections
(1) utilitarian reasoning can be and has been abused

(2) concept of well-being is elusive; things that promote it variable or unknowable

(3) even if we can correctly assess outcomes, our knowledge of future is tenuous and uncertain  


V. even if UWP is correct, need for “secondary” or “subordinate” principles (Mill)

(A) one possibility is to adopt pacifism as our guiding principle
       ARGUMENT: we get best long-run results if we affirm a categorical refusal to fight
   because of inductive likelihood that any future war will be immoral
                [if we apply UWP we risk miscalculation and going to war when we shouldn’t]  
      
        possible replies


(B) another possibility is to adopt the principles of jus ad bellum as secondary principles
      (e.g., right intention, just cause, last resort, proportionality, probability of success)
      they would provide workaday framework in which morality of war is to be examine  
●  making it more likely our decisions will coincide w/ what UWP requires
      [reasons for this]

how would these principles be understood? three possibilities
1. “rules of thumb” or merely pragmatic guidelines
2. genuine normative principles that reflect widespread intuitions that utilitarians will want people to have
3. by analogy with move to Rule-U, the ad bellum rules would replace UWP
[some considerations against this]


VI. three alleged counterexamples
(1) UWP might permit an unjust war, e.g., seizing a small nation’s oil resources

(3) UWP implies that it is wrong for state to resist when doing so is hopeless    [Steinhoff]

(2) wrong to fight just war if there is something better that a nation can do with its resources
     [McMahan’s combatting malaria example]



VII. utilitarianism and the rules of war
frequent claim: Utilitarianism implies that if victory is best outcome, then one may do
              whatever is necessary to win.

this is erroneous for at least two reasons.
? Utilitarianism seeks to maximize net benefit
? It supports recognized rules of warfare, which constrain the conduct of combatants

“recognized rules of war”
? international law of war
? main “in bello” principles recognized by writers on ethics of war
(a) necessity, proportionality, discrimination
(b) thought to have independent normative validity



(1) Utilitarians should staunchly and unequivocally support these rules  
because adherence because to them tends to reduce carnage of war
while seeking to refine or modify them to make them as welfare-promoting as possible.
[prime task now may be strengthening/institutionalizing them]

(2) Utilitarian approach captures why it is so important to uphold those rules
      despite their somewhat arbitrary or troubling features:  
      It seeks those rules that will do most good in the world as it is.


VII. Exceptions to Civilian Immunity?
utilitarians uphold and seek to institutionalize this right, but is it an absolute principle?
Lackey → no; utilitarians should count combatant and civilian causalities equally

Walzer → no; civilian immunity must sometimes yield to consequentialist calculation
     “supreme emergency” exception

problems with both views; better on utilitarian grounds to permit no exceptions

OBJECTION: there will inevitably be cases where it would be better to violate the rule

Responses:
(1) a fairly remote possibility --  the success of a particular mission may matter little
(2) even if does, maximizing prospect of victory ≠ maximizing well-being  
(3) unlikely to know that one is in exceptional circumstance
(4) even if justified, violation makes non-justified violations more likely in the future
(5) utilitarian soldier has strong reasons for adhering to rule despite exceptional circumstances

Best results if the idea of directly killing civilians is never even entertained – even if, on rare occasions, an opportunity to maximize well-being is missed.