Walzer's Realist Argument Analysis

In a word, yes. Walzer’s deconstruction of the realist argument leaves the reader completely convinced that he is right, while the self-serving and reprehensible realists are not only wrong but morally depraved. Why? Because he has identified and brought out into the harsh glare of the open the moral ambiguity, rhetorical ploy, and self-serving innuendo of the realists while insisting upon moral uprightness for his own interpretation of the truth. After exposing the realists for the immoral and underhanded people that they are, Walzer reveals the realists for the darkened souls they hold. The evidences that he uses in his book are good in that he takes them directly from the very arguments of the realists themselves. His modus operandi is to take apart the realist arguments and show them for what they are, a smokescreen for realists’ wrongdoing. …show more content…
I found no instances of faulty logic or any holes in his theory. In fact, if the realists would have scrutinized their own arguments as fairly and carefully as Walzer did, they would have revise their own arguments and possibly come to the same conclusions that he did. It would be difficult to argue that any of the realist arguments are convincing and reasonable. They are a matter of self-justifications with no substance to back them up. Furthermore, there is a clear conflict of interest in most of the things the realists say. They defend their own wrongdoing without giving any opening for opposing voices to have their say. This makes all of their arguments circular. In effect, they are saying, “I was right to do what I did because that’s just the way things are.” Walzer’s ability to examine these arguments under the power of truth quickly shows them for what they