Walzer, Just and Unjust wars

What is the realist view of just and unjust war

All is fair in Love and war

Anything goes

Briefly describe key aspects of the Melian Dialogue. What view of war does it describe?

Athenian generals tell Melians that they can either surrender of be destroyed

Melians refuse because they believe it to be an unfair request

Athenians take over Melos anyways

Important because most people today agree that it was unjust

There are always choices, so these actions were not necessary

What two arguments does Walzer give in response to the realist argument? In other words, what is Walzer's argument against moral relativism?

Human rights

- can not be taken away from people, If realists believe anything goes then do they believe in human rights?

Shared moral vocabulary

- We can all look at situations and view it as not right, such as in the case with the Melian dialogue

Throughout the book, and in Chapter 1, Walzer criticizes "arguments from necessity." What is his criticism of these arguments?

Necessity implies that there is never a choice in these decisions, but there is always a choice

If there is moral evaluation, there needs to be a sense of responsibility and idea of moral choice

Walzer says that war is always judged twice. What does he mean?

Jus ad bellum- justice before war

Jus en bello- Justice in war

Must both be looked at

What wrong does the aggressor in war commit?

o Forcing men and women to risk their lives for the sale of their rights

o It is to confront them with the choice: your rights or (some of your lives)

Given the harsh choice, fighting is the morally preferred response

What are the rights of a political community?

Territorial integrity and sovereignty

The rights of the people are life, liberty, and a shared experience

Why do political communities have rights?

Individual citizens have those rights so therefore the community has the right as well

If states are not protecting individual rights, do those states still have the right not to be attacked?

Yes, it is unjust to attack a country because sovereignty allows them to govern their people however they want

Other countries cannot and should not intervene

Who 'owns' Alsace-Lorraine? Who owns disputed land, land that two or more countries can claim?

o German owned through peace treaty with France, but before both had claims

o The inhabitants should get to choose who owns the disputed land

The great majority of the people were loyal to and favored France, so France should have owned

The utilitarian argument for the legalist paradigm is that it will reduce wars and therefore save lives. What is Walzer's counter-utilitarian argument to the utilitarian argument of the legalist paradigm?

o Reduce the number of wars and save lives overall

o Counter: If we simply appease, we will save more lives

If only goal is to simply save lives, then appease

Which case does Walzer use to illustrate that just war theory is not only about saving lives? What else is at stake in war?

o Czechoslovakia in WWII

o Allow Germans to come in and take them over

o One of the problems of appeasement is that it leaves us impoverished

Right to stand up for your rights and defend yourself

What foreign policy choice (in response to aggression) leaves us "impoverished"?

o Appeasement- saves lives but is unjust because it gives up autonomy, freedom, and rights

What is the twofold justification for preventive war (i.e. preserving the balance of power, preserving the status quo)?

o The balance of power preserves the freedoms of Europe, and is worth defending at some costs

o Fighting early before the balance of power changes, greatly reduces the cost of defense and fighting a larger scale war

· What criteria does Walzer offer to assess whether a pre-emptive attack is just?

o Must distinguish between what is a real threat and being afraid

War is imminent and there must be military preparations

What case does Walzer give to illustrate arguments about pre-emptive war?

o 1967 between Israel and neighbors

o Neighbors massing troops on borders, and prepping for this

o US gave some intelligence about the coming attack

The promotion of human rights motivates Walzer's argument for a just war. Is it just to intervene in countries that are not democratic? Explain.

It is not just to intervene in countries that are not democratic unless that the degree of suffering is extreme enough to warrant violation of sovereignty

Is humanitarian intervention just when one has selfish motives? Explain.

o Yes, because there will always be selfish motives

o Because may have goal to stop humanitarian problem, but other selfish goal

Still stopping problem

For Walzer, what sort of human rights violations potentially justify humanitarian intervention? Explain

o The degree of suffering must be extreme

o Ex. Genocide or ethnic cleansing or enslavement

o Crimes that shock the conscious of humanity

Motives of the intervener

The promotion of justice, in the sense of protecting and validating human rights, motivates Walzer's just war theory. Why do some realists argue that the pursuit of justice leads to significant violence? What is Walzer's response?

o Realist- Believes ones that are trying to reduce war and cause peace

Believe liberals are leading to warfare- pursuit of justice

-Response: even if nations are doing this to serve national interest, even if hiding being justice still just because stopping aggression

Unconditional surrender tends to imply political reconstruction. Does Walzer think political reconstruction is just? Why or why not?

o No

o It is regime change and it is not a just cause of war

o Can have containment but political reconstruction violates rights of political community's right to choose own leader\

o Fuzzy sense of choice because of dictatorships

People must rise up and overthrow regime- if can't then outside shouldn't

· In Walzer's argument, only one side in a war has a just cause. Given this view of just cause, are soldiers moral equals? Should the soldiers and people for the unjust side receive the same rights as the soldiers and people for the just side? Why or why not?

Yes

o Aggressor- unjust, other side- just

o Humans have dignity and its natural that people will support country

Not relevant because people in charge have moral responsibilities

What is the first principle of the war convention?

Once war has begun, soldiers are subject to attack at any time

What is the second principle of the war convention?

Noncombatants cannot be attacked at any time

Is it permissible to shoot a soldier taking a bath? Why or why not? Explain.

o Yes, because there is no way to know what the soldier would do in the future

o Follows the first principle of war

Is it permissible to attack civilians who work in a factory making weapons for soldiers? Explain.

Yes because the weapons are going to go aid the soldiers

Is it permissible to attack civilians who work in a factory making/processing food for soldiers? Explain.

No because food is a basic provision that can also go to the community

Is it permissible for a military submarine commander not to pick up survivors from a military ship that is sinking? What about a civilian ship? Justify your answer.

Yes

o But some effort should be made to save individuals such as reporting or trying to save some- must take great risk to itself to pick up survivors until confident that the enemy is coming to kill them

o Some degree of risk is too much

o Must minimize risk to noncombatants

o Military ship- sailors in water are noncombatants

Recognizes that the context matters- such as several enemy vessels being nearby

What is the principle of double-effect?

The belief that there are good and negative effects of a military action

What are the four criteria? How does Walzer modify one of the criteria?

Good effect must be actually good

- Trying to take out a legit military target- ex

Don't use the Bad effect to obtain the good effect- must be accidental byproduct

Amount of the bad effect cannot be so great that it outweighs the good effect

Good intention

If satisfy this criteria then acceptable to have collateral damage

Why does Walzer talk about the principle of double-effect? What is the purpose of this principle for his argument?

Not only is it that you aren't using the bad effect to obtain the end

Take risk upon self to reduce likelihood of bad effect occurring

How much risk is too much for soldiers to take to minimize civilian casualties? Explain.

o Assume accuracy of bomb that you drop is function of altitude

§ Not accurate but avoid risk

§ Semi accurate, semi at risk

§ Accurate but at risk

Must be some chance that will live, but should still be accurate

Is siege warfare just, according to Walzer's just war argument? Explain.

Siege warfare is just if make attempts to allow civilians through and out

Is a blockade just, according to Walzer's just war argument? Explain.

Unjust because it blocks everything so that civilians have no way to get supplies

Aiming through civilians to hurt soldiers

Under what conditions, if any, are economic sanctions just? Explain.

Targeted sanctions that harm the military and not the civilian population?

Comprehensive sanctions are the most problematic because hurt lower classes

In guerilla warfare, fighters do not typically wear uniforms. If the other side cannot easily distinguish between combatants (guerilla fighters) and non-combatants, does the guerilla- fighting side forfeit some rights? What should the strong side (i.e. non-guerilla-fighting side) do?

o Forfeits rights if they do not wear distinctive sign or carry arms openly

o The strong side should try to distinguish to minimize harm to noncombatants and must take great risk to distinguish between fighter and supporter

If cannot distinguish, must abandon the fight because then it becomes a war against a whole people

How does Walzer define terrorism?

Political violence against noncombatants

What two arguments are usually employed to justify terrorism?

· Military necessity

· Your side has harmed our civilians, so doing the same

What are asinine ethics? Who coined the term and in what context?

o Mao Tse-Tung coined considering a war between two feudal states- waited for soldiers to cross river before attacking

Rules are broken for the sake of the cause- to end the war as quickly as possible

What is the sliding scale argument in just war theory?

o The more justice perceived the more right the action is

Intends to leave only the restraints of usefulness and proportionality

What are the four ways of dealing with the tension between jus ad bellum and jus in bello?

o War convention is set aside under the pressure of utilitarianism argument

o Convention yields slowly to the moral urgency of the cause: the rights of the righteous are enhanced and those of their enemies devalued

o The convention holds and rights are strictly restricted, whatever the consequences

o The convention is overridden, but only in the face of imminent catastrophe

Between the four ways of dealing with tension, which does Walzer prefer?

Rights of noncombatants should only be violated for justice if the heavens are really about to fall

• Is it just to violate state neutrality for a good cause? Justify your answer.

o No reason to violate neutrality because there it is hard to get proof that a nation was at risk, if the neutrality hadn't been violated

• Was the violation of Belgium's neutrality in 1914 just or unjust? Justify your answer.

o Unjust because this was by no means the only way of defending Germany and it was not morally necessary

• Was the violation of Norway's neutrality in 1940 just or unjust? Justify your answer.

o The violation of Norway was unjust and not necessary, should be viewed as a measure of expediency by Britain.

What is a supreme emergency?

o There is considerable fear that leads to one overriding the rights of innocent people and shatter the war convention

· For Walzer, what two criteria define a supreme emergency?

o Imminence of danger

o The nature of the danger

must be applied at the same time

Was the bombing of Dresden just or unjust, according to Walzer?

Unjust because the deliberate slaughter of innocent men and women cannot be justified simply because it saves the lives of other men and women

Was the bombing of Hiroshima just or unjust, according to Walzer?

o Unjust because the people of Hiroshima did nothing to forfeit their rights or make them liable to direct attack

What ethical perspective justifies the bombing of Hiroshima?

o Utilitarian calculation- quick end to the war

Extreme measures are warranted to prevent mass casualties

Besides the ethical perspective, what led to, i.e. what caused, the bombing of Hiroshima?

Believed that Japan was fighting unjustly after the attacl on Pearl Harbor, so therefore they retaliated in a similar fashion

What is the ethical justification for threatening to use nuclear weapons?

Creates a "balance of terror" where a nation won't use nuclear weapons over the fear of a nuclear response

What is the ethical argument against threatening to use nuclear weapons?

o "How can a nation live with its conscience and know that it is threatening to twenty million children in another nation?"'

How can you justify killing millions of innocent people

Is regime change a just cause for war? Why or why not?

· No

· People must rise and overthrow regime-

· if can't then outside should not intervene still

rights of political community's right to choose own leader

When confronting a regime with a history of aggression or likely to commit aggression, what policy does Walzer recommend?

· Containment- no fly zone, inspection system, an embargo to prevent the importation of arms

Cannot attack because then you are being the aggressor

Why did the containment policy against Iraq fail?

· It did not prevent the war

· Bush administration favored regime change and war over containment

No real international support

Given the failure of the containment policy against Iraq, does Walzer think the Iraq War was just? Explain.

Yes, because when it comes to a regime that is harming its own civilians, or acted aggressively in the past, containment is a just action

Containment is known as a "preventive force" which is an action just short of war

What is Walzer's counter-utilitarian response to the utilitarian argument justifying preventive war?

o Preventive war can lead to many small and fruitless wars, there are always small shifts of power, and perfect equilibrium only exists in a utopia

Assessments of anticipatory war depend in part on a potential adversary's intentions. How do realists gauge intentions? How does Walzer propose assessing intentions?

o Realists gauge the credibility of the threat, and whether it is imminent

o Walzer proposes that there must be clear intent when assessing justification of preventive war

o Right of response- allows regimes to justify their actions on a moral basis, that is making a military response morally comprehensible

When both of these factors are take in into account, Walzer emphasizes the necessity of rejecting preventive attacks that are not in response to the willful acts of an adversary

· What case does Walzer discuss to illustrate arguments about preventive war?

o The war of Spanish succession

o French king refused to bar heir to Spanish throne from the French throne which allowed for possibility of a French- Spanish State

o British and European allies took lack of answers as reason to go to war with Spain

Walzer states that the augmentation of power is not enough justification to even begin warranting war, as it is not evidence of intent

When is it permissible to intervene in another country's affairs?

Supporting the political community to make decisions for itself

Secession

Counter intervention in a civil war

Humanitarian intervention

Secession

When a particular set of boundaries clearly contain two or more political communities, one of which is already engaged in large- scale military struggle for independence

Counter intervention in a civil war

When the boundaries have already been crossed by the armies of a foreign power, even if the crossing has been called for by one of the parties in a civil war

The German general von Moltke argued that "the greatest kindness in war is to bring it to a speedy conclusion." Does Walzer agree or disagree? Justify your answer.

o Walzer does not agree, he believes that being speedy can cause more harm to the civilians and more injustices in war.

It is better to be just then speedy