Humanities at the Department for Continuing Education Oxford University

Can there be such a thing as a ‘moral’ war? Can it ever be right to kill innocent people, even in self-defence? Can there be such a thing as a ‘moral’ war? Can it ever be right to kill innocent people, even in self-defence? How do autonomous weapons, remote control weapons and drones change the landscape of warfare, and our thinking about it? These questions and more will be discussed and debated by our panel of experts:

Helen Frowe, Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Stockholm: Helen's research focuses on the ethics of war and defensive killing, with a special interest in the moral status of non-combatants and the permissibility of killing innocent people in self-defence.

Alex Leveringhaus, James Martin Fellow, Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict: his research investigates the moral and legal implications arising from the development and usage of automated (or operationally autonomous) computer-based targeting systems (CBTS) in the military. I am interested in how the development of CBTS affects the rights of combatants during war and to what extent CBTS can be engineered to protect the rights of non-combatants.

James Pattison, Professor of Politics, Universty of Manchester: his research interests currently lie in three related areas: (1) Just War Theory and the alternatives to war; (2) humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P); and (3) the use of private military and security companies.

The discussion will be chaired by Marianne Talbot, Director of Studies in Philosophy, Oxford University Department for Continuing Education.

Prof. Raymond Tallis deepens his argument against the idea that we are our brains. He believes there is a distinction in kind between humans and other animals. This he illustrates by appeal to the differences between the music of Schubert and the singing Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/

Prof.Iain McGilchrist illustrates his argument by appeal to a number of paintings done by psychotic patients. He points to various commonalities between these paintings and speculates on the ways in which they support claims about the two hemispheres and Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/

Prof. Iain McGilchrist, whilst agreeing with Tallis that we are not our brains argues that we can learn a great deal about our culture by learning more about our brain. In particular we should recognise we have two hemispheres, each with a different funct Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/

Prof. Raymond Tallis argues that extraordinary claims have been made for neurophysiology. For example it has been said that a person is nothing but his or her brain. Professor Raymond Tallis rejects this ‘neuromania’. He shows why it is attractive, but al Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/

Another ancient belief held that an art should be governed by rules. Another ancient belief held that an art should be governed by rules. This assumption was discredited in 1674, when Longinus' treatise On the Sublime was translated into French. Technology might be written up in a manual, Longinus explained, but not the sublime. The need to understand a fine art without rules led to the formulations of aesthetics a century later.