|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Ethics and Morality in Politics
Semester 2 2003/2004
Term Paper
----------
Explain Michael Walzer’s views on the ‘Rules of War’ by discussing what a just war versus an unjust war actually looks like on the ground. In your answer, examine the question of whether a just war can actually be waged justly by an unjust (aggressor) state and whether a just (innocent) state can wage an unjust war. Also, answer the question of whether a just war can be won in today’s world without resorting to unjust tactics. ... This is based on the judgments people (inevitably) make on wars, as reflected in the words used in war-related discourses. Walzer’s conception of justice in war is highly based on morality. ... This paper shall (1) explain Walzer’s views on the ‘Rules of War’ as something predicated upon conceptions of rights. ... This discussion would inevitably surface the necessity of the dichotomous approach in ascertaining ‘justice in war’ and ‘justice of war’. (2) Subsequently, what arises is the question of whether a just war can actually be waged justly by an unjust (aggressor) state and whether a just (innocent) state can wage an unjust war. (3) The concluding paragraphs will answer the question of whether a just war can be won in today’s world without resorting to unjust tactics.
In the chapter of the ‘Rules of War’, Walzer first and foremost, advocates the moral equality of soldiers . ... Walzer finds it a moral reality of war that soldiers either fight freely– “choosing one another as enemies and designing their own battles” - or, they fight without freedom. In both cases, he argued that “the war is not their crime” and soldiers governed by their false consciousness should not be held accountable. This right to kill is granted as the prime and most significant principle of what is called war rights. Congruently, war rights are related to the two clusters of prohibitions in the rules of war: (1) when and how to kill, and (2) whom to kill.
Jus ad bellum (justice of war) is outlined in the war convention whose purpose is “to establish the duties of belligerent states, of army commanders, and of individual soldiers with reference to the conduct of hostilities” . The establishment of the war convention presides over two components of whom and how to kill. ... those not trained and prepared for war, those who do not fight or cannot fight. ... These combatants exchange their individual rights for war rights, which have a more limited scope than that of the former. With regards to how can soldiers fight justly, Walzer defined the “legitimate act of war (as) one that does not violate the rights of the people against whom it was directed”. In the chapter in “War Means”, Walzer debunked the utilitarian tenet of utility and proportionality which he argues, “sets the interests of individual and mankind at a lesser value than the victory sought”. Such perspective puts the outcome of the war as the sole yardstick of justice, not the preservation of moral acts based on human rights.
To fully understand these rules of war, this paper shall now discuss Walzer’s proponents of what a just war versus an unjust war actually looks like on the ground.
Approximate Word count = 2652
Approximate Pages = 10.6
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|