Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illu

Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations Michael Walzer first wrote Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations in the years following the Vietnam War, and unfortunately its premise on morality in war will always remain as relevant as it was then as it is now, with conflict between states forever existing. Michael Walzer is one of the most prominent social critics in North America and in this book, he explores two main concepts, the justice of war and the justice in war in a great depth, and uses numerous historical references to support his claims. It is a very well configured piece, written in such a way of persuasion that your personal view on morality in war may ultimately change after delving into thoughts for several hundred pages. To an overwhelming majority of people, the words ‘war’ and ‘morality’ have seemingly opposing meanings, however in the preface to his book, Walzer points out that "whether or not its specific terminology is adapted, just-war theory has always played a part in official argument about war" (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater detail the ways that war has been perceived and how this impacts the topics of war and morality, and in doing so, he provides an intelligently structured and persuasive argument that can be viewed within a moral context. He addresses this topic both from the view of the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the individual. Walzer takes the position that an individual should fight only for private and personal reasons rather then from nationalistic feelings because he feels that it is crucial that this decision should be freely chosen and that it constitutes one of the crucial requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just wars are governed by a set of rules, designed to prevent, as much as possible, "the use of violence and coercion against non-combatant populations" (Walzer XVII); On the other hand, a limited war attempts to establish the way things were prior to the aggression taking place. Aside from extreme cases, just wars do not have legitimate reasons for reaching beyond this goal, including the replacing of the aggressor’s... ...f becoming aggressors themselves. As Walzer points out, the Kuwait regime that US intervention restored to power was little better for the Kuwait people than their Iraqi invaders. However, the ultimate fate of this regime was placed back in the hands of the Kuwaiti people disregarding our attempt at improvement. Reading this book was both uplifting, in that Walzer does an excellent job of developing a framework to understanding what should and should not be done during wartime, as well as depressing, in realizing that war will only evolve and forever exist. The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states and individuals, according to Walzer, offers a rational and moral way of perceiving modern warfare. He ends his text with the comment that "The restraint of war is the beginning of peace" essentially summing up his argument, though will this ‘end’ ever arrive? (Walzer 335). This book offers a sane way of perceiving morality within the insanity of war. Work Cited Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illu Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations Michael Walzer first wrote Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations in the years following the Vietnam War, and unfortunately its premise on morality in war will always remain as relevant as it was then as it is now, with conflict between states forever existing. Michael Walzer is one of the most prominent social critics in North America and in this book, he explores two main concepts, the justice of war and the justice in war in a great depth, and uses numerous historical references to support his claims. It is a very well configured piece, written in such a way of persuasion that your personal view on morality in war may ultimately change after delving into thoughts for several hundred pages. To an overwhelming majority of people, the words ‘war’ and ‘morality’ have seemingly opposing meanings, however in the preface to his book, Walzer points out that "whether or not its specific terminology is adapted, just-war theory has always played a part in official argument about war" (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater detail the ways that war has been perceived and how this impacts the topics of war and morality, and in doing so, he provides an intelligently structured and persuasive argument that can be viewed within a moral context. He addresses this topic both from the view of the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the individual. Walzer takes the position that an individual should fight only for private and personal reasons rather then from nationalistic feelings because he feels that it is crucial that this decision should be freely chosen and that it constitutes one of the crucial requirements for a ‘just’ war. Walzer defines a ‘just war’ as a ‘limited war,’ and that just wars are governed by a set of rules, designed to prevent, as much as possible, "the use of violence and coercion against non-combatant populations" (Walzer XVII); On the other hand, a limited war attempts to establish the way things were prior to the aggression taking place. Aside from extreme cases, just wars do not have legitimate reasons for reaching beyond this goal, including the replacing of the aggressor’s... ...f becoming aggressors themselves. As Walzer points out, the Kuwait regime that US intervention restored to power was little better for the Kuwait people than their Iraqi invaders. However, the ultimate fate of this regime was placed back in the hands of the Kuwaiti people disregarding our attempt at improvement. Reading this book was both uplifting, in that Walzer does an excellent job of developing a framework to understanding what should and should not be done during wartime, as well as depressing, in realizing that war will only evolve and forever exist. The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states and individuals, according to Walzer, offers a rational and moral way of perceiving modern warfare. He ends his text with the comment that "The restraint of war is the beginning of peace" essentially summing up his argument, though will this ‘end’ ever arrive? (Walzer 335). This book offers a sane way of perceiving morality within the insanity of war. Work Cited Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977.