Just And Unjust Wars Summary

Throughout the course of the year, we’ve read many plays, novels, and articles that argued the various beliefs of many different philosophers about what it takes to be a just and righteous leader. But, just like any debate there’s always a contradiction, so they also explain the irrational and unjust qualities of a political leader as well. Possibly, the most important novel we read this school year is Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer because it teaches us the laws and rights of war, along with explaining the traits and actions of a good political leader. For instance, a good political leader must obtain an equal and fair balance of morals that put no human in harm, unless it’s a dire situation. Also, I’m also going to use Walzer’s article

These positive intentions also help to unify a community by bringing everyone under one belief. This leads us into why Walzer wrote the book and that’s because he wanted to explain the laws and rules of fighting a war. He highlights throughout his novel that it’s extremely important for a good political leader to follow these rules because it keeps them in check making sure they’re not exceeding outside the boundaries, but it also offers some beneficiary bonus if you follow them. For example, if a leader follows everything correctly, they are then categorized into the sliding scale: “The more justice, the more right” (Walzer 229). Basically, the sliding scale is a judgment whether you are being a good leader or not, and if so. Then your given the privilege to violate more rules and laws to do what’s necessary whether that’s not being defeated or even winning at times. (Walzer 229). There are countless other examples that Walzer uses to express the difference between a good political leader and a bad one, but these seemed to be the most

For example, Walzer explaining how leaders needs to preserve their moral beliefs throughout war is the most important one to because it keeps us humane. It keeps us from committing to unspeakable actions that we’ll regret later in life. Following that is one I truly disagree with and that’s his argument on intentions. I don’t believe people should be forgiven or looked pass upon if they did something horrible because they full heartedly had good intentions. Anyone can make the argument that they truly believed they were doing the right thing, and that is extremely dangerous. Too me, it provokes negative behavior or bad actions. So, a political leader should not be judged on whether their intentions were good or not. Next, leading we’re lead to his argument on the advancement of warfare, which I agree with completely because it shows the morals and reasonable responses of a good political leader. A good political leader won’t use target killing unless it’s absolutely necessary and we’re not putting people in danger. Now, drone warfare to me it very complicated subject because I see both sides of it. Yes, it can be extremely beneficiary by eliminating targets without risking the lives of anyone, but we are taking away emotional side of it. This emotional side to war is supposed to make us reflect deeply. So, I can’t really pinpoint exactly how I feel. Lastly, were