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justice of war and the justice in war in a great depth, and uses numerous historical
references to support his claims.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.
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.
...c, and Patty Campbell. War Is…Soldiers, Survivors, and Storytellers Talk About War. Cambridge: Candlewick, 2008. Print.
Holsti, K. J. Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648-1989. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Print.
To begin, the first part of just war theory states that the two types of just wars are morally permissible and morally obligatory. (McDonald, lecture.) The US’ actions against Japan were morally permissible as evidenced by Japan’s actions leading up to the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima. Although Japan was not yet at war with the US, they were aggravated by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s reluctant choice to stop exporting oil into Japan, which was due to the US’ frustration of the Japanese’s occupation of Indochina. On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Oahu, Hawaii, which brought US into World War II. Several years later as the war began to wane, the Allied forces met in Germany and created the Potsdam Declaration that clearly stated that if Japan did not surrender, “the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction”. (“Potsdam Declaration,” web.) At this point in the war, the United States had two options, th...
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.
In response to the unjust warfare committed in Vietnam, many activists rose to the challenge to oppose what they believed was wrong. Their activism has slowly changed the way the United States conducts foreign policy. Many forms of weaponry such as herbicides and napalm have been removed from use due to the outcry of their inhumane methods. The sacrifices that these activists made should serve as an example for modern and future American citizens to oppose unjust conflicts and war crimes regardless of the nation they are committed by.
First, war is universal due to its violent nature, violence in its application knows no bounds, and it is the common factor that identifies the war and without it the war is nothing more than a diplomatic effort to reach the end. However, wars blow out only when the diplomacy fails. Violence is the war engine. Although the application of violence evolved through time and its severity varies according to communities, cultures, and the means and methods used. Demonstrating the violence through the application of force to subjugate the enemy is the central idea of war. “War is a clash between major interests,
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.
Justice in warfare has become an influential perspective. In particular the moral implication highlights the core importance of the ‘Just War’ theory. The principle was first established in ancient Rome 106-43 BC by Roman Philosopher Cicero, he stated that, ‘no war is considered just, unless it is preceded by an official demand for satisfaction or warning, and a formal declaration has been made’, (Cicero, 1913, p.38-39). Therefore, it is precedent that a war is established under the principle of justice. The theory was further coined by Roman Christian Philosopher, Augustine of Hippo (345-430 BC) and later carried on by Aquinas (1274 BC). The principle was used to pursue the question on when it was permissible to wage a war and the conduct of a war. Both Christian and Greek philosophers had conflicts on when and how to fight in a war. Therefore, the moral objective for both philosophers was to establish peace. During this period, Aquinas became one of the most influential philosophers on the just war principle. He argues that for a war to be just, it has to fulfil three criteria, ‘(1),the war had to be conducted not privately but under authority of a prince, (2) there had to be a just cause for the war, (3) it was necessary to have the right intention to promote good and avoid evil’, (Dinstein, 2005, p.64). Aquinas emphasises that the principle of jus ad bellum focuses on the moral justification for war. Whereas, the moral conduct of war is implemented through the principle of jus in Bello. Therefore, it can evaluated that the just war theory implements a set of rules to justify military warfare.
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...
which makes it quite clear that in general the "laws of war" are there to
Clausewitz's On War, first published in 1832, until now remains one of the most influential studies in understanding character, nature and conditions of warfare. In his book Clausewitz not only traced an interaction of intension and planning with the realities of combat, but by exploring the relationship of war to policy, politics and society gave a new philosophical justification to the art of war. (Heuser, 2002)
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.
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.
...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.)