more on this theme     |     more from this text

Single Idea 23570

[filed under theme 25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 1. War / a. Just wars ]

Full Idea

The defence of rights is a reason for fighting. I want now to stress again, and finally, that it is the only reason.

Gist of Idea

The only good reason for fighting is in defence of rights

Source

Michael Walzer (Just and Unjust Wars [1977], 04)

Book Ref

Walzer,Michael: 'Just and Unjust Wars' [Penguin 1984], p.72

A Reaction

Walzer states at the beginning, without discussion, that his moral assumptions are based on the notion of rights. This is tricky because rights are assigned by some people to other people, and claims of rights can be challenged.

The 28 ideas from Michael Walzer

23564 Deep ethical theory is very controversial, but we have to live with higher ethical practice [Walzer]
23593 Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello are independent; unjust wars can be fought in a just way [Walzer]
23568 If whole states possess rights, there can be social relations between states [Walzer]
23567 Even non-violent intrusive acts between states count as aggression, if they justify resistance [Walzer]
23570 The only good reason for fighting is in defence of rights [Walzer]
23571 States can rightly pre-empt real and serious threats [Walzer]
23572 Just wars are self-defence, or a rightful intercession in another's troubles [Walzer]
23573 For moral reasons, a just war must be a limited war [Walzer]
23577 Napoleon said 'I don't care about the deaths of a million men' [Walzer]
23574 The duties and moral status of loyal and obedient soldiers is the same in defence and aggression [Walzer]
23575 We can't blame soldiers for anything they do which clearly promotes victory [Walzer]
23614 Even aggressor soldiers are not criminals, so they have equal rights with their opponents [Walzer]
23578 Double Effect needs a double intention - to achieve the good, and minimise the evil [Walzer]
23579 Soldiers will only protect civilians if they feel safe from them [Walzer]
23580 States need not endure attacks passively, and successful reprisals are legitimate [Walzer]
23581 The aim of reprisals is to enforce the rules of war [Walzer]
23582 Reprisal is defensible, as an alternative to war [Walzer]
23584 Rejecting Combatant Equality allows just soldiers to be harsher, even to the extreme [Walzer]
23586 What matters in war is unacceptable targets, not unacceptable weapons [Walzer]
23588 With nuclear weapons we have a permanent supreme emergency (which is unstable) [Walzer]
23587 Nuclear bombs are not for normal war; they undermine the 'just war', with a new morality [Walzer]
23589 Kidnapped sailors and volunteers have different obligations to the passengers [Walzer]
23590 Criminal responsibility can be fully assigned to each member of a group [Walzer]
23592 We can only lead war towards peace if we firmly enforce the rules of war [Walzer]
23591 If the oppressor is cruel, nonviolence is either surrender, or a mere gesture [Walzer]
20595 You can't distribute goods from behind a veil, because their social meaning is unclear [Walzer, by Tuckness/Wolf]
20592 Complex equality restricts equalities from spilling over, like money influencing politics and law [Walzer, by Tuckness/Wolf]
20549 Equality is complex, with different spheres of equality where different principles apply [Walzer, by Swift]