Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1976

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Preface-Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5-Postscript

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Background

Historical Context: 1960s-70s Anti-War and Civil Rights Movements

First published in 1977, Just and Unjust Wars reflects the spirit of the civil rights movements and the protests against the Vietnam War, which ended two years earlier in 1975. Massive protests against the war began in 1964 and continued through its conclusion. A draft was in place until 1973, with 2.2 million men conscripted to fight. People objected to the war for both its unjust goals and methods: Those against the war did not perceive it as a struggle against worldwide communism, but a violation of the Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination. Because the American military was fighting against guerrillas, too many civilians were targeted. The United States’ use of the chemical herbicide Agent Orange and the My Lai massacre were singled out as egregious violations of human rights. Walzer participated in the movement against the Vietnam War, and he draws several examples from that conflict to explain his theory.

The 1960s and 70s saw the rise of civil rights movements for African Americans, women, students, the LGBT community, and Indigenous people. In this spirit, Walzer bases his theory of just war on the natural assumption of human rights. However, he restricts foreign powers from intervening for humanitarian reasons in the affairs of another country except in cases of gross violations of rights, such as enslavement and mass murder. His opposition to American intervention in Vietnam influenced his opinion on this matter.

Ideological Context: Realism Versus Legalism

Walzer rejects realism in favor of the legalist paradigm in international relations. The realist approach considers only national interests, not a society’s values or morals, and it does not place any restrictions on a country’s actions in wartime. The claim that “war is hell” justifies any behavior. President Nixon’s administration (1969-1973), especially Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, favored realist policies. This approach to international relations has continued into the 21st century because it places American interests ahead of other considerations.

By contrast, Walzer places human rights at the center of his theory of just war. He demands that soldiers accept risks to themselves in order to minimize the death of noncombatants from other countries: Moral values must be part of the calculus in determining strategies in wartime. Jimmy Carter, who was elected president in 1976, promised to consider human rights in foreign policy. An ideological split developed at this time, with conservatives more likely to defend realism and liberals, such as Walzer, more prone to embrace legalism and value-based considerations in foreign affairs.

There is additionally a debate among liberals between utilitarianism, which seeks policies that benefit the greatest number of people at the expense of the few, and rights theorists, who prohibit the violation of any individual rights even if the vast majority are served by that violation. Walzer rejects sole reliance on utilitarianism in all but extreme emergencies, as he fears that it would justify the killing of noncombatants for the sake of military necessity too easily. Instead, he uses the standard of human rights, putting the onus on the military to avoid killing civilians if at all possible.