Walzer's Just War Theory

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