more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 23614

[filed under theme 25. Social Practice / E. Policies / 1. War / c. Combatants ]

Full Idea

Soldiers fighting for an aggressor state are not themselves criminals: hence their war rights are the same as those of their opponents.

Gist of Idea

Even aggressor soldiers are not criminals, so they have equal rights with their opponents

Source

Michael Walzer (Just and Unjust Wars [1977], 08)

Book Ref

Walzer,Michael: 'Just and Unjust Wars' [Penguin 1984], p.136


A Reaction

Walzer's main support for this is that opposing armies never regard one another as intrinsically criminal. It seems inevitable, though, that even the invaders themselves see that they are a bit more criminal than the defenders.


The 25 ideas from 'Just and Unjust Wars'

Deep ethical theory is very controversial, but we have to live with higher ethical practice [Walzer]
Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello are independent; unjust wars can be fought in a just way [Walzer]
If whole states possess rights, there can be social relations between states [Walzer]
The only good reason for fighting is in defence of rights [Walzer]
Even non-violent intrusive acts between states count as aggression, if they justify resistance [Walzer]
States can rightly pre-empt real and serious threats [Walzer]
Just wars are self-defence, or a rightful intercession in another's troubles [Walzer]
For moral reasons, a just war must be a limited war [Walzer]
Napoleon said 'I don't care about the deaths of a million men' [Walzer]
Even aggressor soldiers are not criminals, so they have equal rights with their opponents [Walzer]
The duties and moral status of loyal and obedient soldiers is the same in defence and aggression [Walzer]
We can't blame soldiers for anything they do which clearly promotes victory [Walzer]
Double Effect needs a double intention - to achieve the good, and minimise the evil [Walzer]
Soldiers will only protect civilians if they feel safe from them [Walzer]
States need not endure attacks passively, and successful reprisals are legitimate [Walzer]
The aim of reprisals is to enforce the rules of war [Walzer]
Reprisal is defensible, as an alternative to war [Walzer]
Rejecting Combatant Equality allows just soldiers to be harsher, even to the extreme [Walzer]
With nuclear weapons we have a permanent supreme emergency (which is unstable) [Walzer]
Nuclear bombs are not for normal war; they undermine the 'just war', with a new morality [Walzer]
What matters in war is unacceptable targets, not unacceptable weapons [Walzer]
Criminal responsibility can be fully assigned to each member of a group [Walzer]
Kidnapped sailors and volunteers have different obligations to the passengers [Walzer]
We can only lead war towards peace if we firmly enforce the rules of war [Walzer]
If the oppressor is cruel, nonviolence is either surrender, or a mere gesture [Walzer]