Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations Michael Walzer first wrote Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations in the years following the Vietnam War, and unfortunately its premise on morality in war will always remain as relevant as it was then as it is now, with conflict between states forever existing. Michael Walzer is one of the most prominent social critics in North America and in this book, he explores two main concepts, the justice of war and the justice in war in a great depth, and uses numerous historical references to support his claims. It is a very well configured piece, written in such a way of persuasion that your personal view on morality in war may ultimately change after delving into thoughts for several hundred pages. To an overwhelming majority of people, the words ‘war’ and ‘morality’ have seemingly opposing meanings, however in the preface to his book, Walzer points out that "whether or not its specific terminology is adapted, just-war theory has always played a part in official argument about war" (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater detail the ways that war has been perceived and how this impacts the topics of war and morality, and in doing so, he provides an intelligently structured and persuasive argument that can be viewed within a moral context. He addresses this topic both from the view of the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the individual. Walzer takes the position that an individual should fight only for private and personal reasons rather then from nationalistic feelings because he feels that it is crucial that this decision should be freely chosen and that it constitutes one of the crucial requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just wars are governed by a set of rules, designed to prevent, as much as possible, "the use of violence and coercion against non-combatant populations" (Walzer XVII); On the other hand, a limited war attempts to establish the way things were prior to the aggression taking place. Aside from extreme cases, just wars do not have legitimate reasons for reaching beyond this goal, including the replacing of the aggressor’s... ... middle of paper ... ...f becoming aggressors themselves. As Walzer points out, the Kuwait regime that US intervention restored to power was little better for the Kuwait people than their Iraqi invaders. However, the ultimate fate of this regime was placed back in the hands of the Kuwaiti people disregarding our attempt at improvement. Reading this book was both uplifting, in that Walzer does an excellent job of developing a framework to understanding what should and should not be done during wartime, as well as depressing, in realizing that war will only evolve and forever exist. The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states and individuals, according to Walzer, offers a rational and moral way of perceiving modern warfare. He ends his text with the comment that "The restraint of war is the beginning of peace" essentially summing up his argument, though will this ‘end’ ever arrive? (Walzer 335). This book offers a sane way of perceiving morality within the insanity of war. Work Cited Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
Von Clausewitz, Carl. Translated and edited by Sir Michael Howard and Peter Paret. On War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Ghosh, Nibir. "War and the Pity of War: Joseph Heller's Catch-22." The IUP Journal of English Studies VII.2 (June 2012): 51-60. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Titus Livius (Livy) XXX: 28. [2] An Encyclopaedia Britannica article entitled The Conduct and Theory of War
As can be seen, Paul Boyer, Tim O’Brien, and Kenneth W. Bagby, convey the notion that war affects the one’s self the most. Through the use of literary devices: tone, mood, pathos, and imagery, these 3 authors portray that war affects a person’s self most of all. War is not only a battle between two opposing sides, but it can also be a mental conflict created within a person. Although war is able to have an effect on physical relationships between family, friends, or even society, conflict within oneself is the most inevitable battle one must face during war times.
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
Holsti, K. J. Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648-1989. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Print.
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
War is on some level a game. Usually there is two sides, making moves and taking turns. The only difference is, there are no rules in war. War is a game without rules, without mercy, without emotion. Although certain situations require human emotion and interaction, war is most productive when all emotion is removed and as humans we just perform. Emotionless, robotic, cold, ruthless, and morally indestructible; these are the traits of the ultimate war culture. War on any level is impossible without first burying personal principals and destroying the moral compass.
Carl von Clausewitz, “What is War?” On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 139. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.
which makes it quite clear that in general the "laws of war" are there to
In today’s world where there are so many conflicts, battles, and wars happen all at the same time it is very important to ensure that the means that are being used will be justified in the end. From the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan to civil conflicts taking place in Sudan and regions of the former Soviet Union conflicts are happening everywhere. Are these conflicts just or will the outcome not outweigh the losses that will inevitably happen. One such case that we can look at to see if the end did justify the means is by looking at both ...
...Ultimately, the way in which every war is won is by killing the enemy. That will never change. But the way in which an army goes about killing the enemy will constantly change due to ethics, new technology, new levels of hatred, and so on. There are always protesters to every war: “Stop the war! No more killing! Peace on earth!” Who doesn’t want these things? Do they think that the soldiers fighting for our country want to experience the horrors of war? Of course not, but if we do learn anything from history, it is that the human race will never stop waging wars on each other. People will inevitably die at the hands of war and the best that we can do is protect our troops at all costs, destroy the enemy, and spare as many civilian casualties as possible. I agree with General W.T. Sherman who said, “War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.” (Fussell, 774.)