Walzer understands that his ideas are theoretical and probably idealistic in some ways but he also understands that to allow wars to be anything but just is to legalize and encourage aggressive and self serving wars of conquest. Walzer is interested in the development of the idea of what it is for a war to be just. He writes, “Some political theories die and go to heaven; some, I hope, die and go to hell. But some have a long life in this world, a history most often of service to the powers-that-be, but also, sometimes, an oppositionist history. The theory of just war began in the service of the powers” (Walzer 3). The rise of a modern state and the idea of state sovereignty have clouded and wrongly employed the idea of “just war” in using …show more content…
Walzer explains risk free war making and its implications. He writes, “Wars can be fought from a great distance with bombs and missiles aimed very precisely (compared with the radical imprecision of such weapons only a few decades ago) at the forces carrying out the killings”, making them as Walzer calls them, risk free. But to understand what it is, or rather what it should be like to be in war, Walzer quotes Albert Camus. Camus argues that one cannot kill unless one is prepared to die. In certain so called risk free wars, wars in which we choose to drone strike and effectuate change with force from afar, “We impose risks on others and refuse to accept them for ourselves, even when that acceptance is necessary to help the others.” Because of this, we are blameworthy for escalations in conflict and retaliatory attacks. Risk free war making and the second issue concerning war’s endings are what Walzer focus’ on. Regarding the ending of a war …show more content…
Likewise, the “consent” of individuals and its merits are not limited to democratic states. It is defined as “aggression” to attack a non-democratic state too. The question of “Common life” comes up. If common life is not primarily shared morality or ideas, then what is it? Is it Language? Shared history? Religion? Ethnicity? Shared morality? These cannot be primary criterion for common life. Walzer’s and the U.N.’s definition of aggression is an “armed intervention in a state’s affairs. The U.N. defines aggressive war as illegal war. Therefore, the only just war is a war of self-defense against aggression. The moral basis of this claim is that state sovereignty must be
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...
Clausewitz emphasizes that “war is a branch of political activity, that it is in no sense autonomous” (Clausewitz, 605). This principle is especially applicable to the post-war period of World War II. The political struggle between the ideologies of democracy and communism would entail global focus for the next 50 years, and the events that brought about the defeat of Germany shaped the landscape of this political struggle.
Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that...
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.
At no time, in this natural state, is injustice even possible. As Hobbes so concisely states, "Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice." (Hobbes 188) Essentially, since every man is entitled to everything, he is also at liberty to exert any means possible -- including violence -- in order to satisfy all of his wants and needs. In this State of War, each individu...
War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, written by the talented author Chris Hedges, gives us provoking thoughts that are somewhat painful to read but at the same time are quite personal confessions. Chris Hedges, a talented journalist to say the least, brings nearly 15 years of being a foreign correspondent to this book and subjectively concludes how all of his world experiences tie together. Throughout his book, he unifies themes present in all wars he experienced first hand. The most important themes I was able to draw from this book were, war skews reality, dominates culture, seduces society with its heroic attributes, distorts memory, and supports a cause, and allures us by a constant battle between death and love.
Many, including the Catholic Church, judge the justifications of a war based on several factors given in the “just war theory,” which is used to evaluate the war based on its causes and means. The first required factor is a just cause, meaning that a nation’s decision to begin a war must be due to “substantial aggression” brought about by the opposition which cannot be resolved through non-violent solutions without excessive cost whereas armed conflict is not hopeless or excessively costly (“Just War Theory”1). In most cases, wars are started for a reason; however, many of these reasons are for the benefit of the governments who start the wars. The just war theory is widely accepted as a way to determine the moral standing of the reasons. This part of the theory is to ensure that the objective of a war is a reasonable and moral one. It prevents the needless bloodshed and loss of human lives over petty disputes while still protecting the rights and lives of the innocent by acknowledging the necessity of war in dire situations.
requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just
This article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless. The article provides two main reasons that states engage in victimization of civilians; desperation or appetite for territorial conquest. The former refers to lowering costs of war on the states part by increasing the enemy’s cost and lowering the enemy’s morale for continuing the battle. The latter refers to a states want for more land to claim, using force and death to get what they want, by subduing or eliminating the enemy. The civilians who are targeted for these purposes are also chosen strategically. Mistreatment of civilians of the enemy occurs when specific values or traditions are seen as barbaric to the
Carl von Clausewitz, “What is War?” On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 89-112. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
The term "laws of war" refers to the rules governing the actual conduct of armed
This article makes a major contribution to our understanding of how the theory of war has changed over time. The major theme of the article is the relationship that exists between ‘Old Wars’ and ‘New Wars’, and whether the theory behind ‘New Wars’ accurately portrays recent conflicts. It argues that ‘new wars’ should be understood not as an empirical category but rather as a way of elucidating the logic of contemporary war that can offer both a research strategy and a guide to policy. It addresses four components of the debate: whether new wars are ‘new’; whether new wars are war or crime; whether the data supports the claims about new wars; and whether new wars are ‘post-Clausewitzean. Kaldor’s article is especially notable for including criticisms