Over ‘caritas’ en de belofte van de ‘juiste intentie’

Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 111 (1):29-44 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

On ‘caritas’ and the promise of ‘right intent’Back to the roots of justice in warIn classical Just War texts, the criterion of ‘right intent’ is considered a key concept with regard to the justice of a war as such, since it refers to the basiciustusdisposition from which the other criteria (ad bellumas well asin belloandpost bellum) should be applied. However, in current JW debates, determined to a large extent by Traditionalists and Revisionists, the importance of this key concept threatens to disappear from view. This article aims to show the relevance of further reflection on the role and meaning of the criterion of ‘right intent’ using classical JW insights and in particular Hannah Arendt’s analysis of Augustine’s concept of ‘caritas’, given the political relevance of this concept as pointed out by Arendt. The criterion of ‘right intent’ is closely connected to Arendt’s distinction between power and violence and her principle of the right to have rights. Right intent, as a virtue, based on and inspired by caritas, in more contemporary discourse, a humanitarian ethos, implies the promise of theiustusapplication of the JW criteria that were originally formulated precisely for that reason.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,369

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-05-15

Downloads
33 (#691,252)

6 months
13 (#268,562)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Justice after War.Brian Orend - 2002 - Ethics and International Affairs 16 (1):43-56.
Humanitarian intervention: Loose ends.Fernando R. Tesón - 2011 - Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):192-212.

View all 8 references / Add more references