Krig och kön. Feministisk etik och den moraliska bedömningen av militärt våld

Sammanfattning: The present study aims to develop a critical evaluation of feminist ethics and of ethical theories on military violence. The thesis combines a constructivist view of gender and morality with a narrative and communicative approach to ethics, based in theories developed by Iris Marion Young, Seyla Benhabib, Sharon D. Welch and Eva Lundgren. It analyzes ethical arguments for and against the use of military violence, as well as the construction of gender in these theories. Theories of the so-called "just war tradition", represented by Paul Ramsey and Michael Walzer, as well as pacifist theories, represented by John Howard Yoder, Natanael Beskow and Jacques Ellul, are criticized for being constructed without sufficient relation to human experience. Feminist pacifism, based on theories of motherhood and Carol Gilligan's "different voice" theory, especially as found in the work of Sara Ruddick, is criticized for universalizing women's experiences in one specific context and for constructing gender in a traditional way.As an alternative, a moral judgement of military violence based in narratives of rape in war is presented. The conclusion is that an adequate understanding of morality must take into account people's experiences of immorality. Furthermore, it is argued that violence hitherto apprehended as "private" must be related to public violence; that moral judgement should be guided by reason and emotion reflexively; and that moral agency is part of men's and women's gender construction. Through a narrative approach to social ethics, new moral arguments against the justification of military violence are highlighted, in particular, the argument that it violates people's moral agency and their bodily integrity.