This is Philosophy Bites with me Nigel Warburton and me David Edmonds.

If you enjoy Philosophy Bites please support us.

We are currently unfunded and all donations would be gratefully received.

For details go to W.W. philosophy bites.com.

The rules of war draw sharp contrast between combatants and non-combatants.

Civilians shouldn't be intentionally targeted for example.

In recent years some philosophers have argued that the distinction between those who fight

and those who don't is unsustainable.

It can't be justified morally or otherwise.

Seth Lazar, from the Australian National University, however, insist the competent, non-combatant distinction is vital

and must be retained.

Seth Lizzar, welcome to Philosophy Bites.

Thanks very much for having me.

The topic we're going to focus on is civilians in war.

Now there is a common view that it's morally wrong

to target civilians. Right, so there is this trans-historical cross-cultural agreement

that there have to be some kind of limits on who can be killed in war,

and that some kinds of killing in war are more wrongful than other kinds.

And this is built into international law.

It's commonly felt appropriate division between the military

and the people who are around the military?

Yeah, that's right.

...