Philosophy 2290: Ethics and Society
February 15, 2013

War has always been an issue of high discussion due to all the consequences that follow the choices associated when dealing with war. The question we must deal with is; is national self-defense a goal that can justify launching a war, despite the large-scale killing that it is sure to ensue? This question brings many different opinions from both sides of the spectrum and different views. Walzer expresses his view of justifiable wars, while a pacifist like Gandhi, would strongly disagree with these views and debate that there are other, more sensible solutions.
Walzer believes that national self-defense is a justifiable reason for going to war. His views show us that he does not believe in being the aggressor of war, but that he does in fact support pre-emptive and preventive war if it is justifiable for national self-defense. War is not Walzer’s first choice and he believes that even in times of self-defense other options should be tried and explored before the decision of war.
It’s almost as if Walzer has a set of guidelines that must be followed before a war was justifiable and morally correct in his mind. He believed that war was a last resort after all non-violent ways of mediation and arbitration fails. Talking and problem solving verbally was the first course of action to be taken. He believed that if you could solve any disagreement in a non-violent manner, that this would easily be the morally and ethically correct decision.
When communication techniques fail, it becomes of choice of resistances, submission or avoidance. Walzer still believes that if these can be done in a non-violent way, it is still the best choice however he also states that if rights of the nation, or individual are being infringed upon, that it is better to take action. Usually the option of avoiding the problem is dismissed when communication efforts fail, however this is not the case in every situation.
Walzer basis his views strongly on the doctoring of doubling effect. This effect states that the act of good must strongly out way the effect of evil it is creating. The just war theory is doctrine of military ethics, policies and history of how violent encounters should meet criteria of political or ethical standards. The just war theory has 2 parts, the jus ad bellum (the right to go to war,) and the second is jus in bello, the right to conduct war. Jus ad bellum includes the doctoring of doubling effect in its choice to go to war. The main factor that implicates the choice of whether or not it is just to fight a war, is which option has the good effect sufficiently higher then that of the evil being created (proportionality rule). Jus In Bello covers mainly how combatants and people should conduct themselves while the war is taking place. This deals with the moral decisions that must be made during battles. These decisions include the shooting of innocent people, bombing a factory that produces firearms in the middle of a town, and other ethically hard choices.
Walzer’s beliefs and the support of the doubling effect both indict and realize that sometime innocent people will be killed in war with the choices and decisions made during battle. The doubling effect and walzer both describe that it is not permitted to attack non-combatants, however in certain situations, sometimes we must because of their proximity to the war that is being fought. Walzer feels that if we can prevent future deaths and strongly out way good with evil then it is okay for civilian causalities. His thought process is that if we have to have a few causalities to prevent thousands, then it is morally acceptable and okay only if the person doing it or giving the orders feels bad for it, but realizes it has to be done.
A good example of this is the one that we discussed in class dealing with the politician and the terrorist. In the example a person is aware of the location of a bomb that will kill thousands