Michael Walzer
Author of Just and Unjust Wars
About the Author
Michael Walzer is professor emeritus of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, and the author of many widely heralded books, including Spheres of Injustice, Exodus and Revolution, and The Company of Critics. He lives in Princeton and New York.
Series
Works by Michael Walzer
The Company of Critics: Social Criticism and Political Commitment in the Twentieth Century (2001) — Author — 99 copies
Political Action: A Practical Guide to Movement Politics (New York Review Books Classics) (1971) 33 copies
Law, Politics, and Morality in Judaism (Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics) (2006) — Editor — 14 copies
Che cosa significa essere liberale 3 copies
Sfere di ingiustizia 1 copy
Dissent: Spring 2009 1 copy
Dissent, Fall '95 1 copy
יציאת מצרים כמהפכה 1 copy
Associated Works
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1935-03-03
- Gender
- male
- Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- New York, New York, USA
- Places of residence
- England, UK
- Education
- Harvard University (PhD - Government)
University of Cambridge
Brandeis University (BA - History) - Occupations
- political theorist
professor
author
editor - Relationships
- Leavitt, Judith Walzer (sister)
- Organizations
- Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
Dissent (editor) - Awards and honors
- Spinoza Lens (2008)
- Short biography
- As a professor, author, editor, and lecturer, Michael Walzer has addressed a wide variety of topics in political theory and moral philosophy: political obligation, just and unjust war, nationalism and ethnicity, economic justice and the welfare state. His books (among them Just and Unjust Wars, Spheres of Justice, The Company of Critics, Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad, On Toleration, and Politics and Passion) and essays have played a part in the revival of practical, issue-focused ethics and in the development of a pluralist approach to political and moral life. Walzer is a contributing editor for The New Republic and co-editor of Dissent, now in its 59th year. His articles and interviews appear frequently in the world’s foremost newspapers and journals. He is currently working on a series of lectures and then a book dealing with the successes and failures of “national liberation”--and also on the third volume of The Jewish Political Tradition, a comprehensive collaborative project focused on the history of Jewish political thought. His most recent book is In God’s Shadow: Politics in the Hebrew Bible (Yale University Press, 2012).
https://www.sss.ias.edu/faculty/walzer...
Members
Reviews
Arguing About War by Michael Walzer
For the first time since his classic just and unjust wars was published almost 30 years ago, this volume brings together provocative arguments by preeminent political theorist Michael Walzer on contemporary military conflicts – including the Iraq war – and the ethical issues they raise. - from the publisher
This book probably deserves 4 stars. So why only 3? Because I'm not a moral philosopher, lawyer, military historian, etc. and this was a very long read for me. That said, I did 'like' it and, moreover, it was worth slogging through.
Pros: Good questions (What *are* the morals of war? What is just war? What is justice *in* war?), and clear explanation of the viewpoint of the author.
Cons: There is a recurring "rights vs. utilitarianism" argument/tension throughout the book with the greater weight going to rights. Specifically the rights of non-combatants. This seems obvious... and yet I keep finding myself wondering...
There is a great (real-life) example in the book: soldiers clearing a village in WWII. Before throwing grenades into cellars the soldier in question shouts a warning down, taking on the risk of e.g. getting shot by hiding Germans soldiers. He shouts this warning in order to protect potential civilian victims. As it turns out there is a French family in one cellar, who come out at the last minute and are saved, essentially, by the risk taken by -the right action of- the soldier.
The book argues this is correct because the soldier has to take on soldierly risks (getting shot/surprised) to protect civilians even though it would be safer for him to just toss a grenade in each cellar without warning. The reason the soldier is required to do this is because... he's a soldier. When he picked up a gun, he took on this extra responsibility; the civilians, not having picked up guns, retain their peace-time rights (not to get shot, blown up, etc.) So long as the soldier holds his gun (figuratively, somewhat) he has lost some rights (namely, the right to not be shot) AND taken on extra responsibilities. (He gets his rights back, more or less, as soon as he puts down his gun.)
I think I see a problem in this because it creates a kind of perverse moral reward for not fighting. Those people who choose not to fight (say, the Nazis) offload moral duty to those who do "choose" to fight. The author goes through a lot of contortions dealing with this. Which is fine; he is not leaving it unaddressed, even if I don't think he ever calls it out in just this way. But all the discussion of "immoral means in moral causes" and such didn't leave me feeling that this has been satisfactorily addressed.
Which may be because there isn't a good, clean, simple answer.
… (more)
Pros: Good questions (What *are* the morals of war? What is just war? What is justice *in* war?), and clear explanation of the viewpoint of the author.
Cons: There is a recurring "rights vs. utilitarianism" argument/tension throughout the book with the greater weight going to rights. Specifically the rights of non-combatants. This seems obvious... and yet I keep finding myself wondering...
There is a great (real-life) example in the book: soldiers clearing a village in WWII. Before throwing grenades into cellars the soldier in question shouts a warning down, taking on the risk of e.g. getting shot by hiding Germans soldiers. He shouts this warning in order to protect potential civilian victims. As it turns out there is a French family in one cellar, who come out at the last minute and are saved, essentially, by the risk taken by -the right action of- the soldier.
The book argues this is correct because the soldier has to take on soldierly risks (getting shot/surprised) to protect civilians even though it would be safer for him to just toss a grenade in each cellar without warning. The reason the soldier is required to do this is because... he's a soldier. When he picked up a gun, he took on this extra responsibility; the civilians, not having picked up guns, retain their peace-time rights (not to get shot, blown up, etc.) So long as the soldier holds his gun (figuratively, somewhat) he has lost some rights (namely, the right to not be shot) AND taken on extra responsibilities. (He gets his rights back, more or less, as soon as he puts down his gun.)
I think I see a problem in this because it creates a kind of perverse moral reward for not fighting. Those people who choose not to fight (say, the Nazis) offload moral duty to those who do "choose" to fight. The author goes through a lot of contortions dealing with this. Which is fine; he is not leaving it unaddressed, even if I don't think he ever calls it out in just this way. But all the discussion of "immoral means in moral causes" and such didn't leave me feeling that this has been satisfactorily addressed.
Which may be because there isn't a good, clean, simple answer.
… (more)
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 52
- Also by
- 2
- Members
- 3,996
- Popularity
- #6,316
- Rating
- 3.9
- Reviews
- 34
- ISBNs
- 211
- Languages
- 16
- Favorited
- 7
