Authors
William Bülow O'Nils
Stockholm University
Abstract
This paper investigates the circumstances under which it is morally permissible to impose non-negligible risks of serious harm on innocent civilians in order not to endanger tangible cultural heritage during armed conflict. Building on a previous account of the value of cultural heritage, it is argued that tangible cultural heritage is valuable because of how it contributes to valuable and meaningful human lives. Taking this account as the point of departure I examine the claim that commanders should be prepared to risk lives of innocent civilians in order to avoid harm to tangible cultural heritage. I argue that imposing high risks of serious harm on innocent civilians without their consent constitutes a wrong that can be justified only in order to avoid a greater evil. It is then argued that damage to cultural heritage sites rarely constitutes the greater evil when weighed against the imposition of non-consensual risks of serious harm on innocent civilians, especially when the risk is substantial. Still, imposing substantial risks might be morally permissible under the condition that they are consensually imposed, even if they are not the lesser evil. However, I argue that even if one has reason to suspect that there are civilians who might consent to at least some significant risks in order to avoid damage to their cultural heritage, it is not clear that commanders should take this into account when deciding what to do. Unless all of those who are at risk consent, the fact that some of those whose lives are at risk consent to the risk of being killed do not make it morally permissible to impose this risk on the group as a whole.
Keywords Cultural Heritage  Ethics of War  Risk Imposition
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.26556/jesp.v18i3.1076
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,944
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

A Case for Removing Confederate Monuments.Travis Timmerman - 2020 - In Bob Fischer (ed.), Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues that Divide Us. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 513-522.
The Moral Significance of Risking.John Oberdiek - 2012 - Legal Theory 18 (3):339-356.
Rights Against High-Level Risk Impositions.Fei Song - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (3):763-778.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Ethics of Cultural Heritage.Erich Hatala Matthes - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
When the Risk of Harm Harms.Adriana Placani - 2017 - Law and Philosophy 36 (1):77-100.
Morality and Risk.David Patrick Mccarthy - 1995 - Dissertation, University of Southern California
Rights, Explanation, and Risks.David McCarthy - 1997 - Ethics 107 (2):205-225.
What’s Wrong with Risk?Tom Parr & Adam Slavny - 2019 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 8 (2):76-85.
Double Effect, Double Intention, and Asymmetric Warfare.Steven Lee - 2004 - Journal of Military Ethics 3 (3):233-251.
Risky Killing and the Ethics of War.Seth Lazar - 2015 - Ethics 126 (1):91-117.
Dividing Harm.Gerhard Øverland - 2011 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (4):547-566.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-09-23

Total views
10 ( #895,712 of 2,497,996 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #283,501 of 2,497,996 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes