POL323 Study Notes.doc

6 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Seth Jaffe

POL323 Study Notes JUSTICE VS NECESSITY Walzer: - Walzer models JWT (just war theory) on the domestic analogy and the legalist paradigm - review of the basics: - we have a common understanding of the world, universal to any cosmopolitan and yet we also have particular individual political communities (universal morality is at odds with particular political communities) - ex: domestic justice - we have laws, police force, etc, whereas in the int community - there are no such means to enforce and regulate justice Thucydides: THE JUST WAR TRADITION - aggression: an act that violates the rights of a state (and therefore the rights of individuals) - states have a right to defend themselves; other states may join in that punishment against an aggressor to uphold the 'law' (there are some horizontal enforcement/policing mechanisms in the int sphere) - Diodotian argument - political communities do no hold responsibility to each other; the pursuit of one state's own advantage may conflict with another state, though, the conflict should be without gratuitous harm. War is only a conflict of interests, no one is guilty or in the wrong. - Christians and pacifism: - "turn the other cheek" - how does this principle not contradict christian just war? - "it is for love of our own community, that we may defend against aggressors" - turning cheek principle is appropriate for private quarrels, while fighting "out of love" for your political community, and fighting in the right spirit, is justifiable - one can punish in the sense of law and love - Vittoria's doctrine may sit less on Christianity than we assume - main diff b/w modern thought, and past Christian thought: priority of the community > priority of the individual/primacy of duty (what you owe to the community) vs primacy of rights (what the community owes the individual) Vittoria: - he is educating princes on the proper procedure to engage in war - through reason and appeals to Christian values, he limits what princes can justly do (there are no checks on the authority of kingship as citizens have no means to rescind their authority as we do in democratic states) - there isn't quite a priority put on the individual by the christian JWT (by virtue of being part of a community, people are collectively responsible for its actions and therefore can all be punished) - war is fought for the dignity of human beings 'made in the image of god'; to keep a minimal level of justice and not for self preservation or gain. Therefore, his JWT as an authority - to break with it is to sin; it is what god demands (discovered through natural reason) - natural reason: - believes that our reason ultimately points towards the 'truth' of Christianity - reason has a place in arguments about war (not only faith based) - Vittoria parallels a lot of Walzer's work - except in ignorance, it is clear that war cannot be just on both sides - 1) addresses whether it is lawful to wage war: - draws a domestic analogy - it's lawful to "draw sword" against sinners in the community; logic that can extend beyond the community. But, punishment ought to be proportionate to the crime - vengeance vs deterrence: vengeance is about the past, deterrence about the future. Deterrence can fuzz the issue of proportionality of punishment to crime; even for the sake of deterrence, you cannot punish innocent - 2) on whose authority: - (logic of hierarchy) on an individual level, one can act in self-defence, but an ordinary citizen cannot initiate war on behalf of a state; the state is authorized to decide on such matters for its community, or preferably, an impartial third party - 3) what ought to be the causes of just war: - expansion of power, personal glory of the prince/convenience, and differences in religion are not just causes (if they were, Vittoria would be arguing the Diodotean position on justice in pursuing interest) - just war is always punitive - must be in response to certain offenses and there cannot be vengeance/punishment without an offence. But not all give cause to war; punishment must fit crime - process matters - we may hold princes accountable for failing to comply with justice in their decision making processes for going to war matter - this judgement to make war must be made/influenced by the wise - a prince must air his reasons to have them evaluated by the wise/key constituents of war - suggests the importance of consensus - it is not enough for the prince to believe that his cause is just; he must not act in vincible (correctible) error - willful ignorance/correctable - invincible error is excusable whereas vincible error is not as the prince is expected to make use of all wise councils and make informed decisions - if the subjects are certain that the cause is unjust (against their conscious), they are not obligated to go to war; all senators, territorial magnates, etc are duty bound to examine the causes of war because they will be subject to punishment should they lose - 4) what Christians can do to their enemies: - raises a distinction b/w impartial and partial judges - princes are judges in their own cases and may make demands of reparation, punishment, etc (risks disproportion due to being invested in the conflict) - Vittoria is committed to collective punishment but limits responsibility - elites: responsibility is put on the prince and his political and social elites as they are privy to the facts and decision making processes - princes: believing he is the just actor, must stay in line with the logic of Christian justice; be more gentle towards enemy populaces as they hold less guilt - they are not required to investigate the causes of war; they obey princes - soldiers: are largely conscripted, they are less blameworthy (maintain collective punishment, but seems to encourage mercy) - subjects: if subjects fail to support their prince in an unjust war, they are acting against the commonwealth and therefore should fight - cannot act against contentious doubts, but if the subjects have the requisite information to know the cause is unjust, they may abstain from war (rare case) Walzer vs Vitoria: - there is jus ad bellum in Christian doctrine, but it doesn't focus on jus in bello - Walzer separates these, but the Christian JWT doesn't - Vittoria's principles allow for hostages that would otherwise be combatants, and have already been involved in war, to be killed - Walzer: asserts a common moral horizon but doesn't engage in the foundational questions while Vittoria goes into the metaphysical stuff (god) - Vittoria's stance on jus in bello: - cannot intentionally kill innocents in war, just as you cannot in domestic realm - this does
More Less

Related notes for POL101Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.