Week 1

Walzer’s Nonviolence and the Theory of War

1. Context
   
2. Walzer’s arguments against ‘nonviolent defence’
3. Evaluation of Walzer’s argument

1. Context

• This is the concluding chapter in Walzer’s influential book Just and Unjust Wars (1973)
• In that book, Walzer tries to create a theory of the ethics of war
• He calls his theory “the war convention”

• Ethics of going to war
• “Just cause”
• “Last resort”

• Ethics of individual soldiers’ and officers' actions during a war
• “Non-combatant immunity”
• Prisoners of war
• Proportionality

• Walzer’s target is “international realism”

• Realism says:

• inter arma silent leges
• (“in times of war the law is silent”)

• Clausewitz – “War is the continuation of politics by other means”

• Walzer fails to consider the different varieties of pacifism and nonviolence
• He only considers the idea of “nonviolence defence”
• “War without weapons”

• “You cannot shoot at me because I am not going to shoot at you”
• The Gandhian strategy of satyagraha

• Perhaps pacifism and nonviolence are somehow connected to the war convention or deeply embedded within it

2. Arguments against ‘nonviolent defence’

• Nonviolent defence differs from the war convention in that it concedes the conquest of the country that is being defended and occupied
• “Though citizens would never take up arms, they would rally, demonstrate, and strike; and the soldiers would have to respond coercively like the hated instruments of a tyrannical regime”

Challenge #1:

• Nonviolent resistance can easily be crushed
• Aggressors can use excessive violence and repression

Challenge #2:

• If it does succeed, that’s because occupying soldiers empathize with the occupied people and refuse to use violence against them
• But here they seem to follow the war convention voluntarily, making non-violence subsidiary to the war convention

3. Evaluation of Walzer’s argument

• In our world, is it impossible to imagine nonviolent resistance effectively stopping military occupation?

• The United Nations
• Global media
• The internet

• Does Walzer misunderstand the philosophy of nonviolent resistance?
• The political community and its ‘shared life’ are easily crushed

• But, many individual lives might be saved
• Advocates like Gandhi believe that protecting one’s soul from hatred and violence is superior to protecting one’s political community

Lackey’s Pacifism

General aims:

• To classify pacifist arguments by their underlying structure
• To outline which arguments are strong and which are weak

Seemingly distinct pro-pacifism arguments by:

Albert Schweitzer Mohandas Gandhi Leo Tolstoy

St. Augustine Pythagoras Jesus of Nazareth

• At a philosophical level, we often find the similar ‘types’ or ‘structures’ of argument
• Understanding the ‘structure’ of the major pacifist arguments is one of Lackey’s goals
  

Three major categories:

1. Universal pacifism
2. Private pacifism
3. Anti-war pacifism

Four major structures of argument:

• The immorality of killing (universal pacifism)
• The immorality of violence (universal pacifism)
• Private pacifism (immorality of personal violence)
• Anti-war pacifism (immorality of war)

Anti-killing pacifism

• Albert Schweitzer
• Pythagoras

Anti-coercion pacifism

• Mohandas Gandhi
• Leo Tolstoy

Private pacifism

• St. Augustine

Anti-war pacifism

• ?

• Anti-killing pacifism

• The Biblical prohibition

• The sacredness of life view

• The right to life

• Anti-coercion pacifism

• Christian pacifism

• The ‘moral exemplar’ argument (e.g. Tolstoy)

• Gandhian pacifism

• Private pacifism

• St. Augustine’s ‘limited pacifism’

• Anti-war pacifism

• Killing of soldiers

• Killing of innocent civilians

• ‘Consequentialist’ pacifism

The right to life argument:

1. “The immorality of killing is that it violates the right to life that every person possesses”
2. If human beings have a right to life, then it is always wrong to kill
3. Human beings have a right to life
4. Therefore, it is always wrong to kill

• But, what does it mean to say that “human beings have a right to life”?

• “..the possession of any right implies the permissibility of defending that right against aggression”

• “The right to life implies the right to self-defense, including violent self-defense”

The moral exemplar argument:

General idea:

• “Moral action consists in choosing to act in such a way that your conduct could serve as an example for all humankind”

• Tolstoy believes that violence comes from feelings of vengeance, hatred, jealousy etc.,

• These feelings stem from the evil & animalistic side of our nature

• This nature is what deprives humankind of true happiness

• Therefore, in order to find true happiness, we should always resist vengeance, hatred, jealousy, and the violence that comes from them

• But, why can’t we arrive at true happiness if we commit violence only in self-defense?

• Consider the two competing rules:

1. “Never use violence”
2. “Use violence only in self-defense”

• Which of the two rules is likely to lead to true happiness?