Just And Unjust Wars Analysis
Compared to the early 20th century, the wars of today are vastly different. The reasons for fighting, the styles of fighting, and who is fighting are all very different. However, in an age that is far removed from the past, a few things regarding war have remained the unchanged. One of the ideas that has remained unchanged in a time that is every changing, are the rules of war, as described by Michael Walzer in his book, Just and Unjust Wars. Naturally, in a time where so much has changed, there are starting to be a few objections to Walzer’s claims on the rules of war. Even though the wars of today are far different from those of the past, the moral equality of soldiers remains the same regardless if they are associated with being on an unjust
…show more content…
The decision to go to war has nothing to do with the individuals fighting the war. The warfighters are merely following the orders of the politicians and heads of state who have decided to enter into a war. Walzer claims, “We draw a line between the war itself, for which soldiers are not responsible, and the conduct of the war, for which they are responsible, at least within their own sphere of activity” (39). Soldiers are only responsible for what they directly take part in, so as long as both sides, whether fighting a just or unjust war, follow Jus in Bello principals all soldiers should have the same moral equality. However, Jeff McMahan presents a refutation to this belief in his piece, “Rethinking the ‘Just War’ Part 1”, in which he poses the idea that soldiers are directly responsibility for justice/ injustice of a war. McMahan adheres to a school of thought known as the revisionist approach which believes, “ … that it is the individual …show more content…
One of McMahan’s main arguments is based on the idea off self-defense in a time of war. In particular, McMahan focuses on civilian’s right to self- defense during a time of war. Regardless of what theory of war a person subscribes to, no one will disagree that when a combatant directly threatens a civilian’s life, the civilian has a right to self- defense. One of McMahan’s ideas is that, “Civilians might attack combatants to prevent themselves from being harmed by achievement of adversary’s war aims, for example to defend their property or liberty…” (McMahan). However, McMahan’s claim is problematic because if civilians are attacking combatants, they are no longer classify as civilians. Once the civilians start carrying out attacks they classify as guerilla fighter, therefore; allowing them to be attacked justly due to the principals of Jus in Bello. The problem with McMahan’s idea is that he is trying to apply an idea of self- defense that fits in peacetime society (Walzer). However, normal civilian life and wartime activity draw very few comparisons making it extremely hard to try to apply the idea of self-defense in peace to self-defense during
The decision to go to war has nothing to do with the individuals fighting the war. The warfighters are merely following the orders of the politicians and heads of state who have decided to enter into a war. Walzer claims, “We draw a line between the war itself, for which soldiers are not responsible, and the conduct of the war, for which they are responsible, at least within their own sphere of activity” (39). Soldiers are only responsible for what they directly take part in, so as long as both sides, whether fighting a just or unjust war, follow Jus in Bello principals all soldiers should have the same moral equality. However, Jeff McMahan presents a refutation to this belief in his piece, “Rethinking the ‘Just War’ Part 1”, in which he poses the idea that soldiers are directly responsibility for justice/ injustice of a war. McMahan adheres to a school of thought known as the revisionist approach which believes, “ … that it is the individual …show more content…
One of McMahan’s main arguments is based on the idea off self-defense in a time of war. In particular, McMahan focuses on civilian’s right to self- defense during a time of war. Regardless of what theory of war a person subscribes to, no one will disagree that when a combatant directly threatens a civilian’s life, the civilian has a right to self- defense. One of McMahan’s ideas is that, “Civilians might attack combatants to prevent themselves from being harmed by achievement of adversary’s war aims, for example to defend their property or liberty…” (McMahan). However, McMahan’s claim is problematic because if civilians are attacking combatants, they are no longer classify as civilians. Once the civilians start carrying out attacks they classify as guerilla fighter, therefore; allowing them to be attacked justly due to the principals of Jus in Bello. The problem with McMahan’s idea is that he is trying to apply an idea of self- defense that fits in peacetime society (Walzer). However, normal civilian life and wartime activity draw very few comparisons making it extremely hard to try to apply the idea of self-defense in peace to self-defense during