Explain Walzer’s traditionalist account of noncombatant immunity. What if more noncombatants, foreseeably and predictably, would likely be killed “collaterally” than intentionally in a particular battle or war? Why does Frowe make the point that “by and large, the people who are at risk of being harmed by the [risky] enterprise are also the people who will benefit from that enterprise” ? Consider how serious a moral problem this is for unjust as compared to just combatants regarding noncombatant immunity.
Explain what McMahan means by the “responsibility criterion” (see “Ethics of Killing in War,” sec. 8). What are the implications regarding the traditional requirement of discrimination, namely for noncombatants? Consider the extent to which he might agree with Walzer that noncombatants generally “have done nothing, and are doing nothing, that entails the loss of their rights” . Discuss whether and why McMahan’s view goes too far or perhaps not far enough regarding various kinds of noncombatants as legitimate target
Explain Walzer’s traditionalist account of noncombatant immunity.