Walzer's Just War Theory

Improved Essays
For a long time, the traditional just war theorists has been challenged by the revisionist’s view of a revised version of just war theory, which the original theory itself was believed to possess flawed ethical arguments; the Walzer’s just war theory of doctrine of military ethics explicitly indicates the independence between the two fundamental principles, the just cause for war (jus ad bellum) and just conduct in war (jus in bello), but the revisionist McMahan believes the moral equality does not apply to both just and unjust combatants equally due to the belief that there is symmetry between the two principles. I argue that the ideas of moral subjectivism could plausibly invalidate Walzer’s traditional view of just war theory, and in addition, …show more content…
For example, if an unjust criminal failed his attempt to harm an innocent civilian, then would civilian’s defensive struggle count as a threat that is sufficient to justify criminal’s violent response, and granting him the right of self-defense in despite of any malicious intents? According to the traditional theory, any threat posed by the individual will strip him or her immunity, thus makes the person non-innocent and liable to attack. The inconsistency shows that not all defensive force is permissible. In the position of moral subjectivism, one would assume that our personal belief is the sole unquestionable fact, and thus, we can't properly justify the right, or almost anything with moral subjectivism beliefs. However, when events like the Nazis, disasters, crimes, and others presents themselves to the audience, one would have to have something like preference, emotion, or attitude to appeals to. If people are to disagree about criminal’s right of self-defence, then they can in theory attempt to solve the dispute through merging beliefs, ideas and ethical views by looking at relevant data. Consequently, the non-personal morality of the issue can only be produced from a consensus in a subjective debate, which there exists no external standard and no objective truth. As a result of this, moral subjectivism favors neither orthodox nor the revisionist view on the subject of permissibility of defensive force. But, if the consensus ever reach a unanimous answer then the result will dictates whether or not the criminal is justified for possessing the right of self-defence in despite of being unjust. In addition to Walzer’s argument of permissibility of defensive force, he argues that an individual’s freedom of choice will diminish when he or she is enlisted in the army, and

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    An objection that Haag uses is that the right to life is forfeited if the crime that is broken is severe enough. While the counter argument to this is that some rights should be taken, but to kill another human being is not the only form of punishment. Once a life is taken, it cannot be returned, it’s a dark road that has no return. Some state that imprisonment does nothing to deter the next crime of committing that same crime. So sense the argument finds that life imprisonment seem to be a sensible punishment.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He does not argue that torture should be used casually, rather his argument stems from the premise that nations should not be so quick to ban torture in every single circumstance. His primary rhetorical strategy is to use hypothetical extremes to prove his point, in addition, he also appeals to emotion to evoke a sense towards Utilitarianism to justify torture in certain cases. His primary downfall in his argument was that many of his hypothetical have yet to be seen in real life, in light of this, it may delegitimize his argument in certain people’s…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While cultural relativism looks back at the culture to decipher right and wrong, Hobbes’ viewpoint suggests that individuals are right until they commit a crime and then they are deemed wrong. The issue is in a state of nature, we cannot look back to a culture to decide for ourselves what is moral and immoral in a state of war when there are individuals who are not bound by laws or a governing body to oversee them. Additionally, Hobbes would agree that the idea of cultural relativism itself can serve as its own governing body over a culture. It can serve as a set of invisible rules that are followed within cultures when the individuals within them question the morality of an act. Similar to the state of war, social contracts help to anchor the relationships and common interests of individuals.…

    • 2148 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He notes how any society will have certain standards ingrained within its members and that these ingrained morals cannot simply just be forced aside when confronted with a separate society with differing morals. (Williams, 21) Rachels’ relativism argument and Williams’ counter argument are examples of philosophies without a universal moral truth and an argument that debases it. The case of Rachels’ relativism is a little strange in that, while the theory claims to be spreading tolerance of other cultures, the lack of a universal standard to base the moral judgements upon brings up the question of how one would judge their own moral standards. This is especially potent in cases where a culture permits acts such as conquest and genocide-acts that obviously will bring harm to others. The Nazi regime is a prime example of this.…

    • 1298 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    As a moral anti-realist Mackie supposes that moral properties cannot exist independently of the mind. Anti-realism is an umbrella term for a range of theories, but Mackie specifically advocates moral error theory and so when he says that ‘There are no objective values’ he is stating that moral values and judgments aim at truth but fail. Therefore, statements regarding morality for example ‘murder is wrong’ despite the general acceptance are not true…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Laws Of Nature

    • 1622 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Hence, the sovereign power is limited because he is not the final arbiter in the decision-making of the subject. Second, according to Hobbes, the right of self-defence does not justify the emergence of rebellions. In fact, Justice is the keeping of covenant which renders all insurgencies, unjust and illegitimate. However, even though the initiation is prohibited, the right of self-defence permits the perpetuation of rebel activity in the commonwealth. Subjects that have committed a capital crime and expect death can join together and defend one another (Chapter 21, 17).…

    • 1622 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Essay Concerning the Subjectivity of Morality The debate of whether morality is subjective or objective has been hotly debated for many centuries since humans often base their actions off of their personal values. Are these personal values inherent across all of mankind? Those who take the side of moral objectivism would say that this statement is true and that we share a deeply rooted ethical code no matter our background. However, moral subjectivists, such as Mackie, would disagree with this statement on the grounds that moral judgements are simply “equivalent to reports of the speaker’s own feeling or attitudes” (Mackie, 779). Mackie uses several theories in his writing to at least to counter the belief of objective morals by using Cultural…

    • 1437 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The debunker claims that since evolution selects for fitness rather than moral truth, we cannot trust our moral beliefs to be objective, and that we must require a Good Reason to back up all our moral beliefs. This not only knocks out moral realism, or at least leaves it crippled and ineffective, but also leads down the road to pure…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    There must be no direct attacks on civilians and the means used must be proportional to the ends to be achieved. War is wrong but with the just war theory, it acts as an intermediate position to justify anything in war (R. Childress, 1978). As shown, norms are clearly different from laws as they functions to act as a guide for judgments rather than to regulate behaviors. For the Occidental case protests, the actions Wayne took are the recognition of norms in the society. It guides Wayne in understanding the situation and formulates an ethical response to go against the company (R. Childress, 1978).…

    • 1394 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The principle of proportionality maintains that the pursuit of a justified aim in war is constrained by a limit on the means one can adopt to pursue that aim. A means that is disproportionate to the aim is objectionable precisely because there are independent objections to the act that do not relate to the value of the military aim. These objections function as side constraints on the pursuit of the military aim. Proportionality is a principle, then, that relates jus in bello principles to jus ad bellum assessments. Without an independent jus in bello, there would be no such thing as the principle of…

    • 2493 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Superior Essays