Justifying the death of civilians implies justifying the death of children, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Likewise, the ICC bans “intentionally directing attacks against civilians”. They do not specify children. Do you suppose that means directing attacks against children is legal according to the ICC? Of course not, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Finally, I am not your research arm either. You asked me the names of relevant philosophers, I provided them. If you have follow-up questions about their ideas then I applaud your curiousity but you should probably just read what they wrote.
I know you want to pretend that children are not a special class, but there’s a reason we treat children differently from adults and the reason that I am specifically talking about then since you are saying their deaths are justifiable.
The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it’s not necessary to treat them as a special case.
I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don’t understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.
If you look at that link, you’ll find that many of the philosophical concepts (“proportionality”, immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.
Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.
Philosophers rarely give good soundbites.
If you are actually interested in a summary of Just War theory and its critics, you can find one here.
A quick search shows that children are not mentioned.
Children are noncombatants, try searching for that.
How about you tell me where to look since I’m not your research arm?
And, again, I asked you about children. The fact that you keep pretending I’m not just indicates you’re discussing this in bad faith.
Justifying the death of civilians implies justifying the death of children, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Likewise, the ICC bans “intentionally directing attacks against civilians”. They do not specify children. Do you suppose that means directing attacks against children is legal according to the ICC? Of course not, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Finally, I am not your research arm either. You asked me the names of relevant philosophers, I provided them. If you have follow-up questions about their ideas then I applaud your curiousity but you should probably just read what they wrote.
I know you want to pretend that children are not a special class, but there’s a reason we treat children differently from adults and the reason that I am specifically talking about then since you are saying their deaths are justifiable.
The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it’s not necessary to treat them as a special case.
I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don’t understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.
You need to decide whether you’re talking about philosophy or law, because you keep bouncing back and forth between the two.
Another way you are not here in good faith.
They heavily overlap.
If you look at that link, you’ll find that many of the philosophical concepts (“proportionality”, immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.
Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.