Walzer post-class
Just and Unjust Wars is, in a lot of ways, a tough nut to crack. As we discussed in class on Thursday, one can't really argue against it, there's sparse use of formal logic, and Walzer basically says, "if you disagree, well then maybe this book isn't for you--we live in different worlds." It was much easier to digest authors like Rousseau and Kant who used foundational considerations of reason as defense for their argument. As Jesse points out, Walzer's sometimes feels like a "because I said so" kind of argument.
It's a little bit disconcerting to read on p. 107 that "Humanitarian intervention is justified when it is a response (with reasonable expectations of success) to acts 'that shock the moral conscience of mankind,'" wonder what precisely is meant by "reasonable expectations of success" and "shock the moral conscience" and "mankind," and realize that Walzer is pretty okay with the ambiguity of those notions. This infuriates part of me--I think it's important to know what those things mean in order to set up parameters for how war is to be justly begun and executed. Though Hobbes presents, in some ways, a much less palatable argument, one is much more clear about (most of) his definitional notions.
Similarly, if Walzer and those who would want to argue with him are simply talking past each other, why is this book so popular that it is in its 4th edition (printed in Aug '06 with new discussions about the Iraq War)? I would argue that, as we discussed in class, Walzer is touching on something perennial, and that there's still a 'gut feeling' that Walzer is on to something. I was approached by a half-dozen separate people on the Metro while reading this book. All seemed to think that discussions of just and unjust war were important. Even though some of the argumentation techniques employed are similar (albeit much more effective) to those found in some political tracts, one finds it more palatable because there is a need for this kind of thinking (about jus ad bellum and jus in bello) in modern debates (as opposed to some of the nonsense that is printed in the name of 'sound political debate').
Ultimately, I think, it comes down to that 'gut feeling' that Walzer has, specific qualms aside, made a pretty decent point.
N.B. - Christine makes a good point about the absence of talk about jus post bellum.
It's a little bit disconcerting to read on p. 107 that "Humanitarian intervention is justified when it is a response (with reasonable expectations of success) to acts 'that shock the moral conscience of mankind,'" wonder what precisely is meant by "reasonable expectations of success" and "shock the moral conscience" and "mankind," and realize that Walzer is pretty okay with the ambiguity of those notions. This infuriates part of me--I think it's important to know what those things mean in order to set up parameters for how war is to be justly begun and executed. Though Hobbes presents, in some ways, a much less palatable argument, one is much more clear about (most of) his definitional notions.
Similarly, if Walzer and those who would want to argue with him are simply talking past each other, why is this book so popular that it is in its 4th edition (printed in Aug '06 with new discussions about the Iraq War)? I would argue that, as we discussed in class, Walzer is touching on something perennial, and that there's still a 'gut feeling' that Walzer is on to something. I was approached by a half-dozen separate people on the Metro while reading this book. All seemed to think that discussions of just and unjust war were important. Even though some of the argumentation techniques employed are similar (albeit much more effective) to those found in some political tracts, one finds it more palatable because there is a need for this kind of thinking (about jus ad bellum and jus in bello) in modern debates (as opposed to some of the nonsense that is printed in the name of 'sound political debate').
Ultimately, I think, it comes down to that 'gut feeling' that Walzer has, specific qualms aside, made a pretty decent point.
N.B. - Christine makes a good point about the absence of talk about jus post bellum.
posted by Kyle at 6:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home