The Associativist Account of Killing in War

Abstract

Many of us believe that pacifism is mistaken. Warfare, though it involves intentional killing, can sometimes be justified. At the same time, we believe humans enjoy fundamental moral protections against being deliberately killed - commonly expressed in the language of human rights. The challenge is to render these two commitments mutually consistent. We could argue that in justified wars those whom we intentionally kill are liable to be killed: they have lost or forfeited the protection of their rights, so killing is just, because it is rights-consistent. Or we could concede that warfare necessarily involves violating rights, but argue that weightier reasons can override those rights violations, rendering warfare all things considered justified, though unjust.