The Incoherence of Walzer’s Just War Theory

Social Theory and Practice 38 (4):663-88 (2012)

Authors
Graham Parsons
United States Military Academy
Abstract
In his Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer claims that his theory of just war is based on the rights of individuals to life and liberty. This is not the case. Walzer in fact bases his theory of jus ad bellum on the supreme rights of supra-individual political communities. According to his theory of jus ad bellum, the rights of political communities are of utmost importance, and individuals can be sacrificed for the sake of these communal rights. At the same time, Walzer bases his theory of jus in bello on the supreme rights of individuals to life and liberty. According to his theory of jus in bello, the rights of individuals are of utmost importance, and political communities can never permissibly violate them in war. Thus, Walzer’s theory of just war is based on two incompatible theories of justice. This explains why Walzer’s theory produces incoherent practical prescriptions in cases of supreme emergencies. Furthermore, it is impossible for Walzer to base his theory of jus ad bellum on the rights of individuals as he conceives them. The theory of jus ad bellum holds that soldiers are obligated to obey the commands of their political superiors. However, this obligation violates the rights of individuals in a number of respects. This is why Walzer does not base the theory of jus ad bellum on individual rights, and produces an incoherent theory.
Keywords just war theory  individualism  Michael Walzer  supreme emergency
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0037-802X
DOI 10.5840/soctheorpract201238436
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 49,017
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics.Michael Walzer - 1980 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (3):209-229.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Public War and the Moral Equality of Combatants.Graham Parsons - 2012 - Journal of Military Ethics 11 (4):2012.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

How to Judge Soldiers Whose Cause is Unjust.Judith Lichtenberg - 2008 - In David Rodin & Henry Shue (eds.), Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford University Press. pp. 112--130.
Marxism, Internationalism, and the Justice of War.Darrel Moellendorf - 1994 - Science and Society 58 (3):264 - 286.
The Ethics of Killing in War.Jeff McMahan - 2004 - Ethics 114 (4):693-733.
Order and Affray: Defensive Privileges in Warfare.Toby Handfield & Patrick Emerton - 2009 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (4):382 - 414.
The Leaders and the Led: Problems of Just War Theory.C. A. J. Coady - 1980 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):275 – 291.
Area Bombing in World War II: The Argument of Michael Walzer.Stephen E. Lammers - 1983 - Journal of Religious Ethics 11 (1):96 - 113.
The Supreme Emergency Exemption: Rawls and the Use of Force.P. Roberts - 2012 - European Journal of Political Theory 11 (2):155-171.
Kant's Ethics of War and Peace.Brian Orend - 2004 - Journal of Military Ethics 3 (2):161-177.
Rawls and War.Daniel A. Dombrowski - 2002 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (2):185-200.
Just War Theory, Afghanistan, and Walzer.Daniel A. Dombrowski - 2010 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (1):1-7.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-02-13

Total views
105 ( #84,935 of 2,310,674 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #202,291 of 2,310,674 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature