more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
When one cannot count on the moral code of the oppressor, nonviolence is either a disguised form of surrender or a minimalist way of upholding communal values after a military defeat.
Gist of Idea
If the oppressor is cruel, nonviolence is either surrender, or a mere gesture
Source
Michael Walzer (Just and Unjust Wars [1977], Afterword)
Book Ref
Walzer,Michael: 'Just and Unjust Wars' [Penguin 1984], p.333
A Reaction
The point is that ruthless conquerors may just kill the nonviolent, so it would achieve nothing. Nonviolence is only a plausible strategy in a fairly civilised world. Hard to disagree.
| 23576 | Sacking a city is lawful if it motivates the attacking troops [Vitoria] |
| 20001 | The only right victors have over captives is the protection of the former [Montesquieu] |
| 23850 | The soldier-civilian distinction should be abolished; every citizen is committed to a war [Weil] |
| 23579 | Soldiers will only protect civilians if they feel safe from them [Walzer] |
| 23586 | What matters in war is unacceptable targets, not unacceptable weapons [Walzer] |
| 23591 | If the oppressor is cruel, nonviolence is either surrender, or a mere gesture [Walzer] |
| 23602 | Innocence implies not being morally responsible, rather than merely being guiltless [McMahan] |