PHILOSOPHY 1 Essay: McMahan's Critique of Combatant Equality

This essay delves into the philosophical debate surrounding the moral equality of combatants, primarily focusing on Jeff McMahan's critique of the doctrine. It begins by outlining the traditional just war theory and the concept of moral equality, as articulated by Michael Walzer, which posits that combatants on both sides of a war possess similar moral status. The essay then examines McMahan's objections, particularly his arguments against the idea that combatants automatically gain the right to harm or kill others simply by virtue of being combatants. The discussion highlights McMahan's view that the moral equality doctrine is implausible and that the permissibility of harming and killing cannot be separated from the causes of violence. The essay also touches upon related concepts such as the doctrine of double effect and the implications of unjust wars. It concludes by summarizing the key points of the debate, emphasizing the core arguments of McMahan and highlighting the ongoing relevance of this discussion in the context of military ethics and international law. The essay uses references to support its arguments and provide context to the discussion.

Running head: PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1PHILOSOPHY
Introduction
The structure of traditional just war theory is basically replicated in the international
law including two of the major elements concerning with the permissibility of the declaring
war and the concern related to the permissibility conducted within the war. According to the
equality doctrine, combatants on both of the side of the war regardless of their mutual
conceptual independence have the full rights towards hurting and killing their enemy
combatants (McMahan 2006). Contradicting the ideas and the thought of one of the most
renowned and contemporary advocates of the decade, Michael Walzer, a detailed accusation
was explained in the book Killing in War. Prosecuted by Jeff McMahan the book illustrated
one of the most significant comments on the theory of Just War that has been applicable for
many of the years. The two of the most prominent of the focus of the complaints of Jeff
McMahan was over the unjustified ability of the combatants towards meeting the standards
with the failure towards the cause for meeting the standards. The debate on the moral equality
of combatants by Jeff McMahan still persists. The essay argues with the fact whether the Jeff
McMahan case against the moral equality of combatants is successful and if yes then to what
extent.
Discussion
The Doctrine
The doctrine of the moral equality of the combatant’s states that the combatants of
either of the side of a war tend to have similar moral status even in case of one side is violent
or fighting and another side is not (Walzer 2015). The illustration of the doctrine explains the
arguments that tend to offer the collectivist position that is being famously articulated by
Walzer and Jeff McMahan regarding the individualist critique that is furthermore influential.

2PHILOSOPHY
The doctrine has been considered in terms of dominant view throughout history and it is hard
to watch its correctness as a matter of basic morality.
Walzer on the moral equality of the soldiers
According to Walzer in the doctrine, the soldiers cannot endure any sort of modern
warfare for an extended period of time without putting blame on someone for their ongoing
suffering and pain. He raised the context of Marxists false consciousness explaining how
their condemnation focused mainly on the men with whom they were mostly engaged. In the
context of the moral arguments with the historical illustrations, the philosopher explained the
level of hatred which has been in the increasing rate in the trenches. He illustrated this factor
as an alarming reason why the wounded enemies in the battlefield are often left to die and the
prisoners are killed in the thought that the soldiers who are the prisoners are personally
responsible for the war (Hurka 2007). The doctrine illustrated hatred as an interrupted and
over bidden phenomenon by some of the more reflective understanding that is generally
expressed against the letter and the memories of the war. Walzer illustrated the basic notion
that when one side of the soldiers can kill another it is valid to kill them or harm them also
when getting the opportunity or the chance (Walzer 2015). He overlooked the factor of the
deep reason behind the occurrence of the war which is basally not dependable on the soldiers.
Soldiers, however, are not entirely without the violation. Their will is effective and
independent in a very limited sphere and in most of the cases, the sphere is basically narrow.
McMahan’s Objection
As per the consideration and the view of Jeff McMahan and the assignment questions,
the essay will explain the insight and the analysis of the doctrine as per the evaluation and the
criticism by Jeff McMahan. There have been several argument and replies in the response of

3PHILOSOPHY
the objection of McMahan regarding the doctrine, the assignment highlights the arguments
related to the criticism of the doctrine.
According to Jeff McMahan, people do not tend to lose their moral rights by the
justice of defending themselves and another innocent individual against the unjust attacks.
Hence according to the famous philosopher, unless the people lose their rights for some of the
reasons other than the instance of acquiring the status of the combatant, the combatants are
basically innocent in the relevant sense. In the debate regarding the success of the doctrine,
the philosopher depicts the orthodox view. As per the orthodox view, adhering to the jus in
bello restrictions, the combatants of both the sides of a war field have the right to harm and
kill their enemy.
The philosopher furthermore thinks that the objections of the kind conclusively
demonstrate the moral inequality of the combatants in their basic level of morality (Steinhoff
2008). Jeff McMahan’s principle is correct in this scenario since it is not true at each and
every warfare that the combatants on both of the sides trigger the similar rights towards
harming the enemy combatants together with the provision that they abide by the traditional
restrictions of jus in bello.
According to Jeff McMahan, it is basically wrong to harm and kill the innocent
people according to terms of moral even in the consideration of the initiative towards the
achievement of the goals. The concept of the military euphemism targeting the collateral
damage is basically the concomitant slaughter and the mutilation of the innocents. Even in
the case of the just soldiers not harming and killing the innocent people and contributing to
them are being killed. One of the effective ways to escape the debate and the conclusion
would be invoking the doctrine of the double effect or something similar principle together
with the arguments towards the wrong by standard effects. According to the conceptual

4PHILOSOPHY
framework by Jeff McMahan the attack on someone who is basically not liable for the attack
could never be just nominal. The concept furthermore prohibits the central tenant of
philosophy.
The second effective way towards the escape of the conclusion considering the
liability of the justified soldiers for attacking is a factor for an argument for the combatants.
Jeff McMahan recognizes in a very different context for the effect of the co-ordinated
surrender of the entire country and for the wrongful actions.
There has been a very dominant and unjustified view regarding the participation at an
unjust warfare thorough out the history. The central to the concept of the theory lays the
current form of orthodox (Walzer 2015). As per the contemporary theory of just war, the
principles regarding the governing of the conduct of the war tend to make no sort of
discrimination and distinction among the soldiers in the confusion of the war being just or
unjust. The principles are furthermore held to be equally satisfiable by the individuals who
engage in the fights. As per the knowledge and the depiction by Jeff McMahan, the theory
illustrates the scenario that the combatants do wrong while in case of the violation of the
principles together with the determination of the war type.
The context of war, violence and interpersonal conflicts can be due to a variety of
reasons. This may include causes that may be unnecessary for the achievement of the
particular cause. According to Jeff McMahan, the reigning theory is the traditional theory of
just war. In the context of the doctrine, the philosopher explained how the theory about the
morality of the war has been under domination for several hundred years in the western world
and includes two of the distinct components. The doctrine furthermore revealed the real
characteristics claiming the two dimensions as totally separable and distinct towards the
principle of governing the war for the application on the states and their political leaders

5PHILOSOPHY
which are furthermore not applicable to the soldiers and the combatants. Jeff McMahan in
the doctrine furthermore reveals how the rules are supposed to be neutral among both the
sides of the war. The doctrine furthermore provides a symmetrical account regarding the
morality of the killing in the war. The philosopher argued that soldiers on both the sides are
morally liable for attacking and are permitted to kill soldiers maintaining the symmetry of
both the sides. Informed and noted in the international law, the doctrine possesses similar
view regarding the legality that the theory of the traditional war has regarding the context of
the morality.
In the context of the success of the McMahan’s case against the moral equality of
combatant’s doctrine, the philosopher depicted the explanation of the moral equality of the
similar rights, the similar permissions, and the liabilities. He furthermore explained in this
connection; regarding the invalid distinguish among the theory. According to Jeff McMahan,
the doctrine of the moral equality of combatants cannot be true and valid. This is because the
moral symmetrical position regarding both the ideas of the people fighting and violence for a
particular and specific goal and the people conflicting for any unjustified goal is just
completely implausible in nature. The entire context of the permissibility of harming and
killing people cannot be clearly distinguished from the causes of violence from the people
justifying the invalidity of the doctrine by the philosopher.
As per the knowledge of Jeff McMahan, it is basically an analogy towards which
some of the people have appealed and some claim the context of war as a boxing match
where the combatants of both the sides voluntarily waive the right not to be attacked by the
other combatants on the other side. The philosopher argued with the view that has been
inherent in the notion of a soldier or the combatants. Furthermore, as per the case of the
German general Erwin Rommel, the philosopher explained his view regarding the thought
that how he thinks the general has not acted permissibly. The general had not been admirable

6PHILOSOPHY
and honourable and his actions were just like a housebreaker. The philosopher explained his
actions as somebody who tends to engage in complete wrongful activities but also obeys
some of the rules constraining the wrongful activities in some of the desirable ways. Thus it
can be summarized that there may have been some of the sacrifice related to the efficacy for
the sake of making sure regarding the warfare. It is much more likely that the hesitations and
the doubts have the tendency to arise in the case or scenario of genuine unjust wars. Wars
generally tend to persist over the time and there may be some of the urgent need towards the
mobilization for the avoiding of the defeat. Far more information is generally available and
there lies some of the usually less urgency regarding the continued mobilization for the trade-
off among the efficiency and the avoiding of the communication for a favourable aim to
avoid the continuation of unjust was for the requirements towards the maintenance of
efficiency.
Conclusion
The concept of the military euphemism targeting the collateral damage is basically the
concomitant slaughter and the mutilation of the innocents. Jeff McMahan in the criticism of
the doctrine illustrated the instance that how it is essential to note that it is wrong to kill
someone without any specific goals related to personal issues. According to the equality
doctrine, combatants on both of the side of the war regardless of their mutual conceptual
independence have the full rights towards hurting and killing their enemy combatants. The
two of the most prominent of the focus of the complaints of Jeff McMahan was over the
unjustified ability of the combatants towards meeting the standards with the failure towards
the cause for meeting the standards. The debate on the moral equality of combatants by Jeff
McMahan still persists. The essay highlighted the rate of success of Jeff McMahan case
against the moral equality of combatants.

7PHILOSOPHY
References
Hurka, T., 2007. Liability and just cause. Ethics & International Affairs, 21(2), pp.210-213.
McMahan, J., 2006. On the moral equality of combatants. Journal of Political Philosophy,
14(4), pp.377-393.
Steinhoff, U., 2008. Debate: Jeff McMahan on the moral inequality of combatants. Journal of
Political Philosophy, 16(2), pp.220-226.
Walzer, M., 1977. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic
Books,pp. 36-40.
Walzer, M., 2015. Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic
Books.