{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/87592"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/87592","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Objective Morality, Subjective Agents: Justice and Agent-Based Considerations in Self -Defense and War","abstract":"\"Objective considerations of justice can justify self-defense-many already grant this. I argue that subjective considerations are also relevant in justifying self-defense, not merely in excusing wrongful killing. By \"\"subjective considerations\"\" I mean agents' epistemic limitations and agents' intentions (considered apart from the causal efficacy of their actions). Subjective considerations help us reach the following significant conclusions: you may sometimes kill when killing is not necessary in the traditional sense; nevertheless, you may not kill an agent who genuinely appears to be attacking you but who is in fact not a threat at all; also, you may sometimes kill an agent to avoid a threat that the agent did not cause provided that the agent did attempt (unsuccessfully) to cause this kind of a threat. These conclusions carry important implications for the ethics of war. For example, combatants act wrongly whenever they kill a certain kind of enemy combatant that is indistinguishable from legitimate targets. Even so, those performing this kind of wrongful killing are possibly excused if defending against aggression.\"","abstract_html":""Objective considerations of justice can justify self-defense-many already grant this. I argue that subjective considerations are also relevant in justifying self-defense, not merely in excusing wrongful killing. By ""subjective considerations"" I mean agents' epistemic limitations and agents' intentions (considered apart from the causal efficacy of their actions). Subjective considerations help us reach the following significant conclusions: you may sometimes kill when killing is not necessary in the traditional sense; nevertheless, you may not kill an agent who genuinely appears to be attacking you but who is in fact not a threat at all; also, you may sometimes kill an agent to avoid a threat that the agent did not cause provided that the agent did attempt (unsuccessfully) to cause this kind of a threat. These conclusions carry important implications for the ethics of war. For example, combatants act wrongly whenever they kill a certain kind of enemy combatant that is indistinguishable from legitimate targets. Even so, those performing this kind of wrongful killing are possibly excused if defending against aggression."","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Wampler, Eric"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Philosophy","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Wallace, James D."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-28T16:20:48Z","date_published":"2015-09-28T16:20:48Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:30Z","subjects":["Philosophy"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(MiAaPQ)AAI3131042"],"render_values":[{"text":"(MiAaPQ)AAI3131042","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/87592","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Wallace, James D."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Wampler, Eric"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-28T16:20:48Z","10000-01-01","2004"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Philosophy"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Philosophy"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/87592","(MiAaPQ)AAI3131042"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["\"Objective considerations of justice can justify self-defense-many already grant this. I argue that subjective considerations are also relevant in justifying self-defense, not merely in excusing wrongful killing. By \"\"subjective considerations\"\" I mean agents' epistemic limitations and agents' intentions (considered apart from the causal efficacy of their actions). Subjective considerations help us reach the following significant conclusions: you may sometimes kill when killing is not necessary in the traditional sense; nevertheless, you may not kill an agent who genuinely appears to be attacking you but who is in fact not a threat at all; also, you may sometimes kill an agent to avoid a threat that the agent did not cause provided that the agent did attempt (unsuccessfully) to cause this kind of a threat. These conclusions carry important implications for the ethics of war. For example, combatants act wrongly whenever they kill a certain kind of enemy combatant that is indistinguishable from legitimate targets. Even so, those performing this kind of wrongful killing are possibly excused if defending against aggression.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-28T16:20:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3131042.pdf: 9631823 bytes, checksum: 6193139352619509dc68ede44b764c08 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2004","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 88873 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","187 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2004."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Objective Morality, Subjective Agents: Justice and Agent-Based Considerations in Self -Defense and War"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Wallace, James D."],"dc:creator":["Wampler, Eric"],"dc:date":["2015-09-28T16:20:48Z","10000-01-01","2004"],"dc:description":["\"Objective considerations of justice can justify self-defense-many already grant this. I argue that subjective considerations are also relevant in justifying self-defense, not merely in excusing wrongful killing. By \"\"subjective considerations\"\" I mean agents' epistemic limitations and agents' intentions (considered apart from the causal efficacy of their actions). Subjective considerations help us reach the following significant conclusions: you may sometimes kill when killing is not necessary in the traditional sense; nevertheless, you may not kill an agent who genuinely appears to be attacking you but who is in fact not a threat at all; also, you may sometimes kill an agent to avoid a threat that the agent did not cause provided that the agent did attempt (unsuccessfully) to cause this kind of a threat. These conclusions carry important implications for the ethics of war. For example, combatants act wrongly whenever they kill a certain kind of enemy combatant that is indistinguishable from legitimate targets. Even so, those performing this kind of wrongful killing are possibly excused if defending against aggression.\"","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-28T16:20:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3131042.pdf: 9631823 bytes, checksum: 6193139352619509dc68ede44b764c08 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2004","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 88873 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","187 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2004."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/87592","(MiAaPQ)AAI3131042"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Philosophy"],"dc:title":["Objective Morality, Subjective Agents: Justice and Agent-Based Considerations in Self -Defense and War"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Philosophy"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:30Z"}