Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (2):123-144 (1972)

Thomas Nagel
New York University
From the apathetic reaction to atrocities committed in Vietnam by the United States and its allies, one may conclude that moral restrictions on the conduct of war command almost as little sympathy among the general public as they do among those charged with the formation of U.S. military policy. Even when restrictions on the conduct of warfare are defended, it is usually on legal grounds alone: their moral basis is often poorly understood. I wish to argue that certain restrictions are neither arbitrary nor merely conventional, and that their validity does not depend simply on their usefulness. There is, in other words, a moral basis for the rules of war, even though the conventions now officially in force are far from giving it perfect expression.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
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: 69,160
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Killer Robots.Robert Sparrow - 2007 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (1):62–77.
The Ethics of Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2004 - Ethics 114 (4):693-733.
Impermissible yet Praiseworthy.Theron Pummer - 2021 - Ethics 131 (4):697-726.

View all 93 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
394 ( #24,911 of 2,499,406 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
31 ( #28,255 of 2,499,406 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes