Realism
What is the fundamental disagreement between Walzer and a strict realist about the moral significance of war? What example from Thucydides does Walzer use to show this?
A strict realist might argue that power and necessity determine what political actors can realistically do, while Walzer argues that political necessity does not eliminate moral judgement. Realists centers human nature on the desire for power; Walzer complicates that picture by including morality.
The Mytilenean Debate.
What distinguishes pacifism from simply believing that war is undesirable?
Pacifism holds that war or intentional violence is morally impermissible, rather than merely costly, inefficient, or undesirable.
Why does Tolstoy's pacifism lead to a critique of the state?
Because the state maintains authority through coercion and organized violence, including military force. If violence is fundamentally incompatible with Christian morality, then institutions whose authority depends upon violence become morally problematic as well.
Augustine does not argue that Christians must reject all warfare. What basic distinction allows him to reconcile Christianity with the possibility of war? (and justify the Crusades?)
Augustine distinguishes between war itself and the moral purpose/intention behind the use of force. War can sometimes be permissible when undertaken to respond to grave injustice and restore peace. Christianity's commitment to peace does not necessarily require absolute violence. The Crusades in particular were justified as an effort to protect 'Christendom.'
Unlike both pacifists and realists, this thinker argues that we can make meaningful moral judgements about war even though war is a political and violent practice. Identify that thinker.
Michael Walzer.
In the Melian Dialogue, why do the Athenians think the Melians' appeal to justice is insufficient to protect them?
Because power determines what political actors are actually capable of doing. The Athenians argue that the Melians cannot expect justice to protect them when they lack the power to resist Athens. ("the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must")
Unlike a theological pacifist, Russell does not primarily argue that war is wrong because it violates a divine command. What kind of reasoning does he rely on instead?
Consequentialist reasoning. He emphasizes the devastating consequences of war, particularly modern warfare.
What is the difference between saying "Christians should not kill because killing has bad consequences" and Hauerwas's argument?
The first is a fundamentally consequentialist argument. Hauerwas makes an argument that is about Christian faithfulness and identity.
Aquinas identifies four conditions for a just war. Name at least two and explain what each condition is supposed to establish.
1. Legitimate authority: war must be undertaken by someone with proper political/sovereign authority
2. Just cause: those being attacked or punished must have committed some genuine wrong that warrants force
3. Right intention: the war must be directed toward a morally appropriate end, particularly the advancement of good and avoidance of evil
4. Just peace: when the sole overarching goal is the establishment of a stable, just peace
Hobbes and Thucydides both emphasize insecurity and conflict. What is the most important difference between the problems they are trying to explain?
Hobbes is explaining insecurity among individuals in the absence of political authority. Thucydides is explaining conflict among and between political communities, especially through power and fear.
If realism is primarily descriptive (an account of how states actually behave) can it have any prescriptive implications for what states ought to do?
Yes, because realism often moves from an account of political reality to a claim about political responsibility. If power, insecurity, and conflicting interests are persistent features of international politics, then policymakers should take those constraints seriously when deciding what to do.
Suppose a war would save one million people but kill one hundred thousand. Why would Caplan argue this still does not justify violence?
Because Caplan rejects the assumption that maximizing beneficial outcomes is sufficient to justify intentional violence. The moral question is not just "how many lives are saved?" but also whether certain means (such as deliberate killing) are permissible at all. Caplan argues that impermissible killing, which is always involved in war, is morally impermissible in all cases.
Tolstoy and Pope Leo both appeal to Christianity in thinking about war. Why do they reach different conclusions about the moral use of violence?
Tolstoy takes a more radical pacifist position grounded in Christian nonresistance to violence, while Pope Leo allows for the possibility that force can be morally legitimate under certain conditions.
Why does Aquinas place such importance on legitimate authority?
Aquinas does not think private individuals can simply decide for themselves to wage war. Political authority has responsibility for the common good and public order. Requiring legitimate authority helps distinguish public punishment or defense from private or personal revenge.
Morgenthau and Aquinas both acknowledge that political leaders sometimes face situations in which force appears necessary. How does "necessity" function differently in their arguments?
For Morgenthau, necessity is primarily a question of political reality, prudence, power, and consequences.
For Aquinas, necessity does not itself establish moral permission. Force must satisfy moral conditions, including legitimate authority, just cause, and right intention.
The phrase "war is all hell" is sometimes used to justify suspending ordinary moral rules during war. What is the philosophical problem with this move?
War's exceptional circumstances do not automatically create exceptional moral permission. If anything, the extraordinary stakes of war may make moral constraints more important. The argument must explain why necessity, danger, or political emergency can override prohibitions that otherwise remain binding.
Why does modern technology create a particularly serious challenge for traditional justifications of war for Russell?
Modern weapons dramatically increase the scale, speed, and unpredictability of destruction. War can therefore produce consequences vastly beyond the political objective, including catastrophic destruction of civilian populations and potentially civilization itself.
Why is "the enemy has committed an injustice against us" not, by itself, sufficient justification for war according to Erasmus?
Erasmus challenges the move from "having suffered an injustice" to "having permission to inflict violence." Even when the grievance is genuine, Christians remain bound by Christian moral obligations toward their enemies. A just grievance does not automatically suspend the command to love one's enemy.
A ruler sincerely believes conquering a neighboring state will make his kingdom richer and more powerful. Why isn't sincerity enough to establish just cause?
Because right intention and just cause are distinct requirements. A ruler can sincerely desire something while pursuing an unjust objection.
Thucydides and Walzer both take political conflict seriously, but what is the major difference between their approaches to the relationship between power and morality?
Thucydides emphasizes how power and fear shape political behavior. Walzer argues that the fact that power shapes political behavior does not eliminate the possibility of moral judgement about that behavior.
Walzer argues that the fact that political leaders often lie and act hypocritically about morality actually demonstrates what about the role of moral discourse in war?
Their hypocrisy presupposes that moral standards exist and matter. If political actors did not believe moral claims had force, they would have no reason to justify their actions morally or disguise violations of those standards.
What is Caplan's response to a consequentialist defense of pacifism?
We cannot reliably predict the consequences of war. Because we are often wrong about how wars will unfold and what their consequences will be, we should be skeptical of justifying war based on predicted outcomes.
Erasmus and Tolstoy can both be classified as theological pacifists, but their arguments operate at different levels. Distinguish them.
Erasmus primarily challenges the practice and justification of war within Christian political society. He asks: how can Christians participate in warfare when Christianity commands peace and love of enemies?
Tolstoy pushes the critique further, using Christian nonresistance to question the institutional foundations of political violence itself, including state coercion.
Both Augustine and Aquinas reject absolute pacifism but do not simply embrace political violence. What principle allows them to occupy this middle position?
The morality of force depends upon the circumstances, purpose, authority, cause, and intention of its use.
Erasmus and Aquinas are both Christian thinkers concerned with peace. Why doesn't Erasmus simply become another just-war theorist?
Because they locate the moral problem at different levels. Aquinas asks under what conditions can the use of force be morally permissible; Erasmus asks how Christians who are commanded to love their enemies can participate in institutions organized around killing them. Aquinas develops conditions for permissible violence, while Erasmus more fundamentally questions whether Christian commitments permit participation in war in the first place.