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justice of war and the justice in war in a great depth, and uses numerous historical
references to support his claims.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.
The Art of War. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963. Von Clausewitz, Carl. A. Translated and edited by Sir Michael Howard and Peter Paret.
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...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Titus Livius (Livy) XXX: 28. [2] An Encyclopaedia Britannica article entitled The Conduct and Theory of War
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...
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.
In short, the only way the world is going to conduct war, is the way it is now. It will take a larger and more sustainable international effort to make universal guidelines for war. Sure, the Geneva Conventions established protocol for war, but those rules and ideas are only acknowledged by the countries that not just ratified it, but also follow it. Through the Geneva Conventions, is the only way that ethics will exist within the realm of war, otherwise it will constantly find itself cast out in favour of strategy and control. Until then, the grand outcome of war will be bound to realism.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
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.
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 ...
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
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.
The just war theory can be broken down into three components: jus ad bellum, jus en bello, and jus post bellum. Translated from Latin, these mean “justice before war, justice in war, and justice after war.” In this way, the Catholic Church is able to reconcile Jesus’s lofty teachings about loving your neighbor and causing no harm with protecting the innocent (Massaro 104).
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
which makes it quite clear that in general the "laws of war" are there to
...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.)