Deane-Peter Baker

The field of military ethics has generally been attentive to emerging trends in modern warfare. Cyber, robotics and AI, for example, have inspired an abundant and flourishing literature. One trend, however, has been largely overlooked: the emergence of special operations as a prominent instrument of statecraft. Drawing extensively on historical cases and first-hand experience, the authors of this book call attention to qualities inherent in special operations – and special operators – that challenge the moral framework which has long informed conventional military operations. Moral theorists will find this analysis provocative, while practitioners – those who conduct or oversee special operations and have an interest in the moral wellbeing of special operators – can put the authors' insights to practical use. Those who simply view with fascination the opaque world of special operations will find this book illuminating.

This book debates competing approaches to ethical decision-making for members of the armed forces of liberal democratic states. In this volume, four prominent thinkers propose and debate competing approaches to ethical decision-making for military personnel. Deane-Peter Baker presents and expounds the ‘Ethical Triangulation’ model, an ethical decision-making method he has employed through much of his career as an applied military ethicist. Rufus Black advocates for a natural law-based approach, one which has heavily influenced the framework formally adopted by the Australian Defence Force. Roger Herbert outlines the ‘Moral Deliberation Roadmap’, the moral reasoning framework recently adopted by the US Naval Academy. Iain King then sets out a model of quasi-utilitarian decision-making developed in several post-conflict settings and refined at the UK’s Royal College of Defence Studies. After the opening chapters in which each author outlines their favoured decision-making approach, the four contributors then evaluate each other’s proposals, often critically. Philosopher David Whetham offers some concluding thoughts in which he summarizes areas of agreement between the authors, identifies key areas of difference, and suggests directions for future research. This book will be of great interest to students of military ethics, the ethics of war, moral philosophy, and International Relations, as well as military professionals.

This book debates competing approaches to ethical decision-making for members of the armed forces of liberal democratic states. In this volume, four prominent thinkers propose and debate competing approaches to ethical decision-making for military personnel. Deane-Peter Baker presents and expounds the ‘Ethical Triangulation’ model, an ethical decision-making method he has employed through much of his career as an applied military ethicist. Rufus Black advocates for a natural law-based approach, one which has heavily influenced the framework formally adopted by the Australian Defence Force. Roger Herbert outlines the ‘Moral Deliberation Roadmap’, the moral reasoning framework recently adopted by the US Naval Academy. Iain King then sets out a model of quasi-utilitarian decision-making developed in several post-conflict settings and refined at the UK’s Royal College of Defence Studies. After the opening chapters in which each author outlines their favoured decision-making approach, the four contributors then evaluate each other’s proposals, often critically. Philosopher David Whetham offers some concluding thoughts in which he summarizes areas of agreement between the authors, identifies key areas of difference, and suggests directions for future research. This book will be of great interest to students of military ethics, the ethics of war, moral philosophy, and International Relations, as well as military professionals.

The field of military ethics has generally been attentive to emerging trends in modern warfare. Cyber, robotics and AI, for example, have inspired an abundant and flourishing literature. One trend, however, has been largely overlooked: the emergence of special operations as a prominent instrument of statecraft. Drawing extensively on historical cases and first-hand experience, the authors of this book call attention to qualities inherent in special operations – and special operators – that challenge the moral framework which has long informed conventional military operations. Moral theorists will find this analysis provocative, while practitioners – those who conduct or oversee special operations and have an interest in the moral wellbeing of special operators – can put the authors' insights to practical use. Those who simply view with fascination the opaque world of special operations will find this book illuminating.

In Morality and Ethics of War, which includes a foreword by Major General Susan Coyle, ethicist Deane-Peter Baker goes beyond existing treatments of military ethics to address a fundamental problem: the yawning gap between the diverse moral frameworks defining personal identity on the one hand, and the professional military ethic on the other. Baker argues that overcoming this chasm is essential to minimising the ethical risks that can lead to operational and strategic failure for military forces engaged in today’s complex conflict environment. He contends that spanning the gap is vital in preventing moral injury from befalling the nation’s uniformed servants. Drawing on a revised account of what he calls ‘the Just War Continuum’, Baker develops a bridging framework that combines conceptual clarity and rigour with insights from cutting edge psychological research and creates a practical means for military leaders to negotiate the moral chasm in military affairs.

In Morality and Ethics of War, which includes a foreword by Major General Susan Coyle, ethicist Deane-Peter Baker goes beyond existing treatments of military ethics to address a fundamental problem: the yawning gap between the diverse moral frameworks defining personal identity on the one hand, and the professional military ethic on the other. Baker argues that overcoming this chasm is essential to minimising the ethical risks that can lead to operational and strategic failure for military forces engaged in today’s complex conflict environment. He contends that spanning the gap is vital in preventing moral injury from befalling the nation’s uniformed servants. Drawing on a revised account of what he calls ‘the Just War Continuum’, Baker develops a bridging framework that combines conceptual clarity and rigour with insights from cutting edge psychological research and creates a practical means for military leaders to negotiate the moral chasm in military affairs.

Citizen Killings: Liberalism, State Policy and Moral Risk offers a ground breaking systematic approach to formulating ethical public policy on all forms of 'citizen killings’, which include killing in self-defence, abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, euthanasia and killings carried out by private military contractors and so-called ‘foreign fighters’. Where most approaches to these issues begin with the assumptions of some or other general approach to ethics, Deane-Peter Baker argues that life-or-death policy decisions of this kind should be driven first and foremost by a recognition of the key limitations that a commitment to political liberalism places on the state, particularly the requirement to respect citizens’ right to life and the principle of liberal neutrality. Where these principles come into tension Baker shows that they can in some cases be defused by way of a reasonableness test, and in other cases addressed through the application of what he calls the ‘risk of harm principle’. The book also explores the question of what measures citizens and other states might legitimately take in response to states that fail to implement morally appropriate policies regarding citizen killings.

This is a philosophical exploration of the moral issues raised by the use of private military contractors in war. The presence of contractors on today's battlefields is without question one of the most significant developments in modern warfare. While many contractors perform relatively benign tasks on behalf of the military, controversy rages around those contractors who offer services that involve the use of armed force. The rise of the private military industry raises some difficult issues. For example, Jeremy Scahill, one of the industry's most vociferous critics, questions whether the outsourcing of military force is not 'a subversion of the very existence of the nation-state and of principles of sovereignty'. These questions are at essence philosophical challenges to the existence of the private military industry. In "Just Warriors, Inc.", philosopher and ethicist Deane-Peter Baker argues that, contrary to popular assumptions, a compelling moral and philosophical case can be made in favour of the ongoing utilization of the services that these 'private warriors' offer. The book is a must-read for anyone interested in moving beyond the hyperbole and exploring in depth the real questions that should be asked about the privatisation of military force. "Think Now" is a new series of books which examines central contemporary social and political issues from a philosophical perspective. These books aim to be accessible, rather than overly technical, bringing philosophical rigour to modern questions which matter the most to us. Provocative yet engaging, the authors take a stand on political and cultural themes of interest to any intelligent reader.

This is a philosophical exploration of the moral issues raised by the use of private military contractors in war. The presence of contractors on today's battlefields is without question one of the most significant developments in modern warfare. While many contractors perform relatively benign tasks on behalf of the military, controversy rages around those contractors who offer services that involve the use of armed force. The rise of the private military industry raises some difficult issues. For example, Jeremy Scahill, one of the industry's most vociferous critics, questions whether the outsourcing of military force is not 'a subversion of the very existence of the nation-state and of principles of sovereignty'. These questions are at essence philosophical challenges to the existence of the private military industry. In "Just Warriors, Inc.", philosopher and ethicist Deane-Peter Baker argues that, contrary to popular assumptions, a compelling moral and philosophical case can be made in favour of the ongoing utilization of the services that these 'private warriors' offer. The book is a must-read for anyone interested in moving beyond the hyperbole and exploring in depth the real questions that should be asked about the privatisation of military force. "Think Now" is a new series of books which examines central contemporary social and political issues from a philosophical perspective. These books aim to be accessible, rather than overly technical, bringing philosophical rigour to modern questions which matter the most to us. Provocative yet engaging, the authors take a stand on political and cultural themes of interest to any intelligent reader.

In recent philosophical discourse, there has been a proliferation of work in the field of philosophy of religion, and in particular at the intersection between epistemology and philosophy of religion. Much of that interest has centred on the emergence of what has come to be known as 'Reformed Epistemology'. The central claim of Reformed epistemologists is that belief in God is properly basic. The purpose of the arguments offered by Reformed epistemologists is to oppose what Plantinga calls the 'de jure' objection to theistic belief - the idea that it is somehow irrational, a dereliction of epistemic duty, or in some other sense epistemically unacceptable, to believe in God. This objection is distinct from what Plantinga labels the 'de facto' objection - the objection that, whatever the rational status of belief in God, it is, in fact, a false belief. The primary goal of Reformed epistemology, then, is to defend Christian belief against the de jure objection, thereby showing that everything really depends on the truth of Christian belief. This book demonstrates the feasibility of combining the Reformed epistemologist's position with an argument for theism that the author draws from Charles Taylor's work. In it, he shows the value that would be added to the Reformed epistemologist's position by such a combination.