> perhaps one worries it may push Russian closer to using nuclear weapons by cornering them further
I didn't see you address this argument, but it also looks awful to me. By this logic, you shouldn't try to win against Russia, because that also brings them closer to using nuclear weapons. In fact, by this logic, you should just surrender immediately.
The "distributive justice" argument has a premise that I didn't see you question, which is that the appropriate (collective) punishment for war is execution without trial. Most people in the developed world believe both that (1) the death penalty is immoral and (2) people should be considered innocent until proven guilty in court. Even if enemy soldiers are collectively guilty, killing them violates both these principles.
The distributive justice argument also fails when you consider the symmetry of the situation. From the perspective of the other side, they would think your soldiers are collectively guilty and deserve to be executed. Who's to say you're right and they're wrong?
Yeah I agree it's not a good argument either. I just threw it out as a possible toy objection; hence not addressing it.
'Who's to say you're right and they're wrong' Good moral reasons. The question may be difficult, as many moral questions often are, but from there it hardly follows there isn't an objective answer, or that we cannot settle the *who's to say* question with good moral philosophy, broadly construed.
> perhaps one worries it may push Russian closer to using nuclear weapons by cornering them further
I didn't see you address this argument, but it also looks awful to me. By this logic, you shouldn't try to win against Russia, because that also brings them closer to using nuclear weapons. In fact, by this logic, you should just surrender immediately.
The "distributive justice" argument has a premise that I didn't see you question, which is that the appropriate (collective) punishment for war is execution without trial. Most people in the developed world believe both that (1) the death penalty is immoral and (2) people should be considered innocent until proven guilty in court. Even if enemy soldiers are collectively guilty, killing them violates both these principles.
The distributive justice argument also fails when you consider the symmetry of the situation. From the perspective of the other side, they would think your soldiers are collectively guilty and deserve to be executed. Who's to say you're right and they're wrong?
Yeah I agree it's not a good argument either. I just threw it out as a possible toy objection; hence not addressing it.
'Who's to say you're right and they're wrong' Good moral reasons. The question may be difficult, as many moral questions often are, but from there it hardly follows there isn't an objective answer, or that we cannot settle the *who's to say* question with good moral philosophy, broadly construed.