Just And Unjust War Analysis
War is Hell
A review of chapter 2, 'The Crime of War' in Michael Walzer's book, "Just and Unjust Wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations." Allen Lane 1997.
In this chapter, Walzer discusses the cruelty of war and whether there can be any justification for such cruelty. He begins by distinguishing between the justice of war (jus ad bellum) and the justice in war (jus in bello). "War is always judged twice, first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting, secondly with reference to the means they adopt." (p.21).
However, here Walzer sought to explain the logic and the tyranny of war. The logic of war requires a reciprocal action on the part of each of the adversaries. Each forces the hand of the other and in so doing delves deeper and deeper into bloodshed. According to General Eisenhower, "When you resorted to force you didn't know where you are going...If you got deeper and deeper there was just no limit except ... the limitations of force itself." (p.23).
Walzer makes a distinction between wars that are described as hell and other more benign forms of fighting. The warfare that involves aristocratic young men competing in tournaments of some sort would not be described as hell. These sorts of war are creative and beautiful. It is a type of disciplined contest that …show more content…
However, it is obvious that in this chapter Walzer is laying down the ground rules for how he intended to approach the subject of war in later chapters. In discussing the phrase war is hell, he is seeking to understand in what sense is this true. Is war hell in the attack or the resistance? Is war hell for those who consent or not consent? Is war hell for the aggressors or the defenders? And how is it to be described as hell? Is it hell in how it is fought or the fact of the war itself. Is it hell in the number of fatalities or casualties or how bloody it
A review of chapter 2, 'The Crime of War' in Michael Walzer's book, "Just and Unjust Wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations." Allen Lane 1997.
In this chapter, Walzer discusses the cruelty of war and whether there can be any justification for such cruelty. He begins by distinguishing between the justice of war (jus ad bellum) and the justice in war (jus in bello). "War is always judged twice, first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting, secondly with reference to the means they adopt." (p.21).
However, here Walzer sought to explain the logic and the tyranny of war. The logic of war requires a reciprocal action on the part of each of the adversaries. Each forces the hand of the other and in so doing delves deeper and deeper into bloodshed. According to General Eisenhower, "When you resorted to force you didn't know where you are going...If you got deeper and deeper there was just no limit except ... the limitations of force itself." (p.23).
Walzer makes a distinction between wars that are described as hell and other more benign forms of fighting. The warfare that involves aristocratic young men competing in tournaments of some sort would not be described as hell. These sorts of war are creative and beautiful. It is a type of disciplined contest that …show more content…
However, it is obvious that in this chapter Walzer is laying down the ground rules for how he intended to approach the subject of war in later chapters. In discussing the phrase war is hell, he is seeking to understand in what sense is this true. Is war hell in the attack or the resistance? Is war hell for those who consent or not consent? Is war hell for the aggressors or the defenders? And how is it to be described as hell? Is it hell in how it is fought or the fact of the war itself. Is it hell in the number of fatalities or casualties or how bloody it