Accounting for Self-Defense: Perspective and Responsibility as its Moral Basis

Daniel James Schuster was born in Linz, Austria, in 1986. He completed his BA studies in Philosophy at the Karl-Franzens University of Graz in 2013. In 2006 / 2007 he was an "Austrian Holocaust Memorial Servant" at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial site in Jerusalem for 12 months. For this work he was awarded as "Austrian Servant Abroad of the Year 2007" by invitation of the president of the Austrian parliament, Mag. Barbara Prammer. Through several work and study trips he spent more than two years in China, also learning the Mandarin language. Since 2013 he engages in MA studies at the IDC Herzliya in Israel in Political Science with a focus on comparative studies between Israel and China with regards to their conflict with the Palestinians and Uyghurs. Besides China and Israel he also studied in Australia and has been an ERASMUS MUNDUS student in Azerbaijan.

Text Sample:
Chapter 1..: Introduction
Some people, when confronted with the issue for the first time, have an intuitive reaction towards the idea of killing someone, which suggests that any killing is morally wrong. Others, however, especially when having a closer look at the issue, agree that not every killing of another human being is wrong from a moral point of view. Many people have argued against pacifism. But even some pacifists would concur that at least some forms of self-defense are morally permissible. Thus, if we share, on the one hand, the belief that the killing of another human being is to be avoided but, on the other hand, concurrently believe that some forms of self-defense, or perhaps even some wars, are morally justified, then the question arises on where we draw the line between these positions? When is it morally permitted to kill someone? When does a war become a morally "just" one?
Throughout history many people have thought deeply about these questions. The first written documentation of such a treatment is found in the Indian epic Mahabharata in which five ruling brothers ask if the suffering of a war can ever be justified and a long discussion ensues. Concepts such as proportionality (chariots may only attack chariots), just means (no poisoned or barbed arrows), just cause (no attacking due to revenge) and humane treatment of captives and wounded emerged. Ancient Roman writers too have battled with the idea of reconciling ethics and war. The most famous one is Cicero in De Officiis Book 1.
Moreover, in the Christian tradition some famous writers have written thoroughly on the topic of war within a Christian framework, most notably the Ancient theologian St. Augustine as well as the Middle Age Christian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas. It was St. Augustine who in his work The City of God coined the term "just war", a term that has accompanied discussions on the topic even until today. It was Thomas Aquinas who elaborated on the idea of a just war to encompass a just motive, an authority such as a state as well as peace as the central motive.
The idea of Just War has remained until today's academic discourse on the topic and it has, in fact, undergone a revival in the 20th century, mainly in response to the invention of nuclear weapons as well as America's involvement in the Vietnam War. The most prominent text on Just War in the 20th century was Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977). But in subsequent discussions more and more of Walzer's underlying assumptions were challenged - again, a development that has continued until today. There are two main reasons for this:
Firstly, the nature of war has changed. Today's wars often do not occur anymore amongst states, but rather between states and non-state actors as well as decentralized terrorist organizations. The United States' war engagements in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq can be cited as examples, but also the recent wars in Libya or Syria. And, of course, the continuous battle with Al-Qaeda and its affiliates is a fight against decentralized actors.
Secondly, a lot of work has been done by philosophers, particularly by philosophers from the analytical tradition, following each war that has led to a much more nuanced discussion and has led the focus on aspects previously overlooked.
Consequently, a distinction has been introduced between the "traditional" just war theorists à la Walzer and the "revisionist" ones. The revisionists are not at all united and the discussions remain vibrant as a school of thought. But they do hold some beliefs in common. What differentiates them from the traditional just war theorists at heart, is, that they believe war to be a continuation of different forms of conflict, such as individual self-defense, and that, therefore, the justification for war needs to be traced back to the same source of morality as in different forms. In this unifying quest it claims that the criteria for jus ad bellum do