ABSTRACT
This chapter continues and expands the critique of just war “revisionists,” especially Jeff McMahan, for the emphasis they place on unjust wars and unjust warriors. A thorough review of historical JWT perspectives shows that (1) moral warriors are recognized as facing an epistemic dilemma in knowing with certainty in which wars they are ordered to fight are just; (2) but that this is remedied by the organization (whether the military, or the governing society) granting sufficient autonomy and leeway to properly prepared professionals to exercise prudent judgment, and to include sufficient autonomy in the exercise of military professionalism to allow for dissent in a minimally just and reasonably well-run military organization. Contrary to McMahan’s formulation (Killing in War, 2009), however, I argue that allowing or permitting selective conscientious objection should not simply equate to holding (as McMahan does) only the youngest members of the profession strictly accountable for making the proper choice for all its members. Instead, the proper exercise of professional military advice in politically difficult and challenging circumstances falls to senior, rather than junior, members of the profession.
