In this paper I shall briefly sketch an argument for the immunity of noncombatants which avoids Mavrodes' criticisms. It will establish that in warfare there is a morally relevant distinction between non- combatants and combatants which prohibits the intentional killing of the former at the same time as it justifies the intentional killing of the latter. My argument will appeal to a nonconventional principle, and thus the obligation deriving from the principle will not be convention- dependent (or anyway not wholly so). I will then go on to show that even if certain considerations undercut drawing the line of immunity between combatants and noncombatants, a weaker version of the immunity thesis is still viable
At the outset I would like to thank the Professor Robert K. Fullinwider for sharing this article. Please accept heartfelt thanks for that.