Walzer's Argument Between Just And Unjust Wars

597 Words3 Pages
Sean Baldwin Dr. Hallgarth Just War Theory In-Class Essay I. Walzer’s argument in chapter 3 of Just and Unjust Wars is a very good description of the moral realities of war. Walzer’s argument misses a major ambiguity in that it may be possible to turn an aggressor into a victim and vice versa leading to an even more abundant set of issues. Walzer argues that certain difficulties turn war into pure hell for the combatants. On one hand General Sherman argued that by not burning Atlanta, the North would be leaving itself open to future attacks, but by burning the city to the ground Sherman felt he was able to prevent any more aggressions by the South. Sherman argued that the North was acting in self-defense and according to Walzer; wars of self-defense are in no way a crime. The problem with Sherman’s argument is that the South could simply seek to end the war by surrendering, but Sherman views what he is doing as necessary and instead chooses to burn Atlanta. The problem here is that Walzer does not…show more content…
Germany was horribly beaten and then forced to pay all kinds of reparations to the victimized countries. The problem with this is that the question of whether it was morally right to punish Germany into complete and utter bankruptcy. This of course fueled the fire that led to Germany declaring war on Europe in 1939. Although it is stated that any act of aggression by one state on another where political sovereignty or territorial integrity is threatened is a crime, and all crimes are punishable. However, World War I was started after an act of aggression, assassination by the Serbs, on and Austrian archduke. The question then arises as to whether or not Germany really did need to be punished. And were they the victim or the aggressor? This is the problem with the legalist paradigm in that it is never a clear cut instance of who needs to be punished and who does
Open Document