ABSTRACT
This chapter introduces a distinction into our thinking about warfare, and to explore the moral implications of this distinction. It examines three closely related treatments of this moral question: the arguments of Elizabeth Anscombe, John C. Ford, and Paul Ramsey. Thie chapter argues that on their own terms, and without reference to that distinction, they must be counted as unsatisfactory. A number of philosophers have held that a large portion of the population of warring nations have a special moral status. This is the non-combatant segment of the population, and they have a moral immunity from being intentionally killed. Imagine a statesman reflecting on the costliness of war, its cost in human life and human suffering. The immunity of noncombatants is best thought of as a convention-dependent obligation related to a convention which substitutes for warfare a certain form of limited combat.
