Discussion Questions for:
Walzer, Preface and Chapters 1-3
1. What does Walzer mean when he says I am not going to expound morality from the ground up and this is a book of practical morality (p. xxix)? But in the next paragraph he makes clear that he is going to do more than just describe what others say about morality. This is a clue to Walzers method. What middle ground between ultimate justification of moral judgments and mere description of others judgment is Walzer suggesting as his method?
2. What is realism and how does Walzer argue against it? What conclusion does Walzer draw from his treatment of Thucydides?
3. What is the importance of Walzers claims about hypocrisy; in particular, The clearest evidence for the stability of our values over time is the unchanging character of the lies soldiers and statesmen tell and wherever we find hypocrisy, we also find moral knowledge (p. 19)?
4. In
what sense does Walzer agree and in what sense does Walzer disagree with Clausewitzs claim that war
is hell?
a) Why did Clausewitz believe that
war is hell? What is Walzers view of that reason?
b) What does make war hell, according
to Walzer? What kinds of war are not hell, according to him?
i) What kind of war would be the least hellish, in Walzers terms?
ii) How do wars with mercenaries fit
in here?
iii) Is war less hellish or not hellish
at all in the
iv) Does serving in a democratic
self-determining country make war less hellish?
5. Why is aggression a moral crime, according to Walzer?
6.
General Sherman, fighting against the Confederate army,
said war is cruelty and you cannot refine it...those who brought war into our
country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. (p. 32)
How does Walzer respond to
7.
Should we agree with the idea of the moral equality of
soldiers? In what sense was an American soldier fighting against the Nazis the
moral equal of the German soldier? Should this also apply to generals, so that
General Eisenhower (U.S.) and General Rommel (
1. According to Walzer, for what decisions are soldiers morally responsible and for what decisions are they not morally responsible?
2. A central claim of Walzer is that the code of conduct that must be followed by soldiers does not depend on whether or not the war is just. This is a claim for the independence of jus ad bellum (justice OF war) and just in bellow (justice IN war). Do you agree? What do you think of the argument that if you are a soldier or general on the just side in a war, your only obligation is to win the war as quickly as possible?
* What is important here is the extent to which war ...is a personal choice that the soldier makes on his own and for essential private reasons. That kind of choosing effectively disappears as soon as fighting becomes a legal obligation and a patriotic duty. (p. 28)
** Even in hell, it is possible to be more or less humane, to fight with or without restraint.