A non-combatant is one who is not threatening and whose activities have the intention of peace, he thus has a right to life. While a combatant of an unjust army, or an enemy must be described differently to a non-combatant. Combatants on the unjust side are on the same moral footing as the combatants on the just side of the war and are liable to be killed. Civilians may not be targeted in war, but all combatants, whatever they are fighting for, are morally permitted to target one another. Walzer agrees that civilians should not be attacked in principle, but in reality, they are still endangered due to their proximity. He then suggests that measures should be taken to avoid any excessive harm to them.
The just war doctrine is a governing regulatory…show more content… For McMahan, the moral equality of combatants (MEC) is what is quite problematic. According to the traditionalists, civilian deaths are justified only by the just goal and cause of the whole “good” worthy of their deaths. But combatants fighting in pursuit of an unjust cause achieve nothing that can outweigh the violated rights of their victims since they are fighting for an unjust cause to begin with. He further argues for the falsity of the combatant equality by grounding the liability to be killed in responsibility. The responsibility for wrongful threats and not just in being posed as a threat. The unjust combatants are responsible for wrongful threats and hence liable to be killed. While the just combatants are not responsible and not liable to be killed. According to him there is the possibility to pose an unjust threat without becoming liable to defensive force or losing one’s right not to be attacked. And it is also possible to be morally liable to self- defense force without posing an unjust threat. How could it be that one could pose an unjust threat to another and yet not lose one’s right not to be attacked and becoming permissible towards the potential victim’s attack in self-defense? For a person who defends himself against an unjust attack does not become liable to be attacked just because he is now the posing threat to his attacker. The implications may be counter-intuitive, but he admits that “one does not lose one’s right not to be attacked by posing an unjust threat in one is in no way morally responsible for this fact.” All and only unjust combatants are liable to be killed for they are morally responsible for the unjust threat and only the just combatants can thus kill legitimately. The just and unjust combatants have different rights on permissibility and thus, the claim for the equality of combatants
