By /

Just War and Pacifism

Hey Mumbai University SYBA IDOL students!  Today, we’re diving into the fascinating world of Social Political Philosophy , exploring  about – “Just War and Pacifism“. We’ll cover several key areas that will help us understand the ethical and philosophical perspectives on war and peace.

Firstly, we’ll explain the justifications of war provided by Michael Walzer in his theory of just and unjust wars. This will give us insight into the reasons why some wars are considered justified while others are not.

Next, we’ll discuss Walzer’s account of Jus ad bellum (Right to War) and Jus in bello (Justice during Wars). These concepts are crucial in understanding the ethical considerations before and during warfare.

We’ll then explore the relevance of the just war theory for international societies. This will help us understand how these ideas impact global politics and conflicts.

After that, we’ll write an exposition on Walzer’s theory of Jus post bellum (Justice after wars) and its implications on the prospects of peace. This will highlight how justice should be maintained even after a war has ended.

We’ll also define pacifism and explain in detail its different types. Understanding pacifism will give us a perspective on the arguments against war and violence.

Furthermore, we’ll write a note on transformational pacifism and non-violence from the Gandhian perspective. Gandhi’s approach to non-violence is a significant contribution to the philosophy of peace.

We’ll then elaborate on pacifism and cosmopolitanism from the Kantian deontological ethical perspective. This will show how Kant’s ethics contribute to the discussion on pacifism.

Lastly, we’ll explain the feminist care ethics perspective as a critique of the different notions of pacifism. This will provide us with a unique viewpoint on the ethics of care and its relevance to the pacifist debate.

By the end of our session, you’ll have a comprehensive understanding of these complex and interrelated topics. So, let’s embark on this enlightening journey together and delve into the profound discussions of Just War and Pacifism!

So, SYBA IDOL Mumbai University students, get ready to unwrap the mysteries of “Just War and Pacifism” with customized IDOL notes  just for you. Let’s jump into this exploration together.

Just War and Pacifism
Just War and Pacifism

Question 1 :- Explain the justifications of war provided by Micheal Walzer in his theory of just and unjust wars?

 Introduction:

         Michael Walzer is a well-known philosopher who has written extensively about the moral aspects of war. In his theory of just and unjust wars, Walzer provides several reasons why going to war can be considered just or fair. This theory helps us understand the moral complexities involved in deciding when it is right to engage in armed conflict.

  • National Liberation: Walzer argues that a war can be justified if it is fought to gain independence from an oppressive rule. When a group of people is struggling to become free and form their own nation, it is sometimes acceptable for other countries to help them. This kind of intervention can be seen as supporting the right of people to self-determination and freedom.
  • Counter Intervention: According to Walzer, if a foreign army intervenes in a country’s civil war, other countries might have a right to step in as well. This is to balance the intervention and support fairness in the conflict. The idea is that countering an unjust intervention by another state can be morally right.
  • Humanitarian Intervention: Walzer believes that when severe human rights abuses occur, such as mass killings or slavery, it is justifiable to intervene to stop these atrocities. In such cases, intervening to protect innocent lives and stop severe injustices is seen as a moral duty.
  • Assistance to Legitimate Government: Walzer suggests that it is sometimes right to help a legitimate government in a civil war. However, the goal should be to support the government, not to win the war for them. The outcome of such interventions should reflect the strength and will of the local people involved, not just the power of the intervening state.
  • Moral Urgency and Just Cause: Walzer emphasizes that a war must have a just cause. This means the reasons for going to war should be morally compelling, such as defending political independence, ensuring freedom, or protecting human life. The sacrifices made in war, including lives lost, must be for a legitimate and morally defensible purpose.

 Conclusion:

          Michael Walzer’s theory of just and unjust wars provides a framework for understanding when war can be morally justified. His justifications include supporting national liberation, countering foreign intervention, stopping severe human rights abuses, assisting legitimate governments, and ensuring that wars are fought for morally urgent reasons. This nuanced approach helps us navigate the complex ethical considerations involved in the decision to go to war, ensuring that such actions are taken with a clear moral understanding and purpose.

Question 2 :- Discuss Walzer’s account of Jus ad bellum(Right to War) and Jus in bello (Justice during Wars)

 Introduction: 

        Michael Walzer is a renowned philosopher who has extensively discussed the morality of war. His theory of just and unjust wars is divided into two main parts: Jus ad bellum (Right to War) and Jus in bello (Justice during Wars). These concepts help us understand when it is right to go to war and how to act ethically during war. Walzer’s ideas are essential for evaluating the fairness and morality of wars and the actions taken during conflicts.

 Jus ad Bellum (Right to War):
  • Moral Justifications for War: Walzer emphasizes that deciding to go to war should be based on moral reasons. This means a country should only go to war if it has a good moral reason, like defending itself from an attack or stopping severe human rights abuses that cannot be fixed in any other way.
  • Criteria for a Just War: According to Walzer, a war can be just if it is fought for reasons like self-defense or to correct serious wrongs. However, any war that targets innocent people or breaks established rules cannot be considered just. This ensures that wars are only fought for valid and ethical reasons.
  • Legitimacy of Intervention: Walzer believes that sometimes, intervening in another country’s affairs can be justified. This is particularly true in cases where people are fighting for their freedom or when there are severe human rights violations. Interventions must aim to support justice and help those in need.
 Jus in Bello (Justice during Wars):
  • Ethical Conduct in War: Walzer stresses the importance of acting ethically during war. He explains that it is crucial to judge whether a war is fought justly or unjustly based on how it is conducted. The methods used in war should be fair and follow ethical guidelines.
  • Protection of Non-Combatants: Walzer asserts that targeting innocent people during war is unjust. He emphasizes the principle of discrimination, which means distinguishing between fighters and non-fighters. Protecting non-combatants is a fundamental aspect of conducting a just war.
  • Proportionality and Just Means: Walzer highlights that the use of force in war must be proportional. This means that the actions taken should be balanced and appropriate to the moral goals and expected benefits of the conflict. Using excessive force is not justified.

 Conclusion:

           Michael Walzer’s theory of just and unjust wars provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the morality of wars. By focusing on Jus ad bellum (Right to War) and Jus in bello (Justice during Wars), Walzer emphasizes the importance of moral justifications for going to war and ethical conduct during war. His principles of protecting non-combatants, ensuring proportionality, and acting ethically are crucial for understanding and assessing the justice of wars. Walzer’s ideas contribute significantly to the discussion on the ethics of war and the moral responsibilities of states and individuals during conflicts.

Question 3 :- Explain the relevance of the just war theory for international societies

 Introduction:

       The Just War Theory is a moral framework that helps us evaluate when it is right to go to war and how to act ethically during war. This theory is very important for international societies as it provides guidelines for making fair and moral decisions about war. It also promotes peace, protects human rights, and influences international laws. Here are some key points explaining why the Just War Theory is relevant for international societies.

  • Ethical Guidelines: The Just War Theory gives nations and leaders ethical rules to decide if going to war is justifiable. It stresses principles like just cause, proportionality, and distinguishing between fighters and non-fighters. These principles help leaders reflect on their decisions and make them accountable, ensuring that wars are fought for the right reasons and in the right way.
  • Prevention of Unjust Wars: By setting clear criteria for a just war, the Just War Theory helps prevent nations from starting wars for wrong reasons like aggression or revenge. This deters unjust wars and promotes peace and stability in the international community. Nations are less likely to engage in conflicts if they know their reasons are not morally or legally justifiable.
  • Promotion of Human Rights: The Just War Theory emphasizes protecting human rights and minimizing harm to civilians during wars. It advocates for the ethical treatment of people in conflict zones and condemns actions that harm human dignity. By doing so, it helps promote human rights norms in international societies, ensuring that even during wars, human rights are respected.
  • Influence on International Law and Norms: The principles of the Just War Theory have shaped international humanitarian law and norms that govern warfare. Ideas like proportionality, distinction, and necessity are reflected in legal frameworks such as the Geneva Conventions. These principles help form the rules of engagement and ensure accountability in armed conflicts, making warfare more humane and just.
  • Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution: The Just War Theory encourages peacebuilding and conflict resolution by stressing the conditions under which war is justified and the ethical conduct during wars. It provides a foundation for dialogue, negotiation, and reconciliation in post-war situations. This helps promote long-term stability and peace in international societies, encouraging nations to resolve conflicts peacefully.
  • Ethical Accountability: The Just War Theory holds states and leaders accountable for their actions during wars. It fosters a sense of ethical responsibility and transparency in international relations. By encouraging reflection on the moral implications of military interventions and the use of force, the theory promotes a more ethical and principled approach to international affairs. This accountability helps build trust and cooperation among nations.

 Conclusion:

         The Just War Theory is highly relevant for international societies because it promotes ethical conduct, protects human rights, prevents unjust wars, and influences international legal norms. It encourages peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and ethical accountability, contributing to a more just and stable global community. By following the principles of the Just War Theory, nations can ensure that their actions during wars are morally justified and aimed at promoting peace and justice.

Question 4 :- Write an exposition on Walzer’s theory of Jus post bellum (Justice after wars) and its implications on prospects of peace

 Introduction:

     Michael Walzer’s theory of Jus post bellum, or justice after wars, focuses on the moral principles that should guide the actions and policies after a conflict ends. This theory emphasizes the importance of rebuilding and healing societies after the devastation of war. It aims to ensure that peace is not just the absence of conflict but a positive and lasting state where justice and human rights are upheld. Here is an exploration of Walzer’s theory of Jus post bellum and its implications for achieving lasting peace.

  • Rebuilding and Reconstruction: Walzer’s theory stresses the need for rebuilding and reconstructing societies after war. This includes fixing the physical damage like destroyed buildings and infrastructure, and restoring social and political systems. It involves rebuilding communities, restoring institutions, and promoting reconciliation among former enemies. This process helps societies recover and move towards stability and peace.
  • Justice and Accountability: Jus post bellum also highlights the importance of justice and accountability. It is crucial to hold those responsible for war crimes and atrocities accountable. This ensures that perpetrators face consequences and victims receive justice. Transitional justice mechanisms, such as trials and truth commissions, help address past grievances and injustices that might have contributed to the conflict.
  • Reconciliation and Healing; Reconciliation and healing are essential components of Jus post bellum. Promoting dialogue and understanding among conflicting parties helps to build trust and mutual respect. Addressing the psychological and emotional wounds caused by war is crucial for long-term peace and stability. This process involves forgiveness and working together to heal the deep scars left by the conflict.
  • Restoration of Rights and Dignity: Restoring rights and dignity to individuals and communities affected by war is another key aspect of Walzer’s theory. Ensuring human rights protection, providing reparations for victims, and creating opportunities for marginalized groups are all important steps. This helps to rebuild a sense of fairness and justice in post-war societies, allowing everyone to participate fully in society.
  • Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention; Walzer’s theory emphasizes the role of peacebuilding and conflict prevention in post-war periods. Addressing the root causes of the conflict, promoting inclusive governance, and fostering social cohesion are vital for preventing future conflicts. By creating conditions for sustainable peace, societies can reduce the chances of falling back into violence.
  • International Involvement and Support; International support is often necessary in post-conflict situations. Walzer’s theory acknowledges the importance of assistance from the global community, including peacekeeping efforts, humanitarian aid, and capacity-building. This support helps war-torn societies transition towards peace and stability, providing the resources and expertise needed for effective reconstruction and reconciliation.
  • Implications for Prospects of Peace: Applying the principles of Jus post bellum can significantly enhance the prospects of peace in post-conflict societies. By focusing on justice, reconciliation, and rebuilding, Walzer’s theory helps to build trust and social cohesion. This creates a solid foundation for sustainable peace and development, ensuring that the transition from conflict to peace is comprehensive and lasting.

 Conclusion:

      Michael Walzer’s theory of Jus post bellum highlights the moral responsibilities and challenges that arise after wars. By emphasizing justice, accountability, reconciliation, and peacebuilding, the theory provides a framework for post-conflict societies to navigate the complexities of transition. This approach helps to achieve a more peaceful, just, and stable future, ensuring that the hard-won peace is preserved and strengthened over time.

Question 5 :- What is pacifism? Explain in detail it’s different types

 Introduction:

       Pacifism is a belief system that opposes war, violence, and the use of force to resolve conflicts. Pacifists advocate for nonviolent resistance, peaceful solutions to disputes, and the promotion of harmony and justice through peaceful means. This philosophy can stem from religious, moral, political, or philosophical beliefs. There are various types of pacifism, each with its own approach and nuances. Understanding these different types can help us appreciate the diverse perspectives within the broader pacifist philosophy.

  • Absolute Pacifism: Absolute pacifism is the strictest form of pacifism. Absolute pacifists reject all forms of violence, regardless of the circumstances. They believe that violence is always morally wrong, even in situations of self-defense or just war. Absolute pacifists adhere to the principle of nonviolence unconditionally, refusing to engage in any action that could cause harm to others.
  • Conditional or Contingent Pacifism: Conditional pacifism, also known as contingent pacifism, allows for the use of force in certain situations. Conditional pacifists generally oppose war and violence, but they recognize that there may be rare circumstances where using force is justified. For example, they might accept the use of force in self-defense or to protect others from greater harm, but only as a last resort.
  • Just War Pacifism: Just war pacifism combines pacifist principles with the just war theory. Just war pacifists believe that war is usually wrong, but there can be exceptional cases where it is morally justified. These cases must meet strict criteria, such as having a just cause, proportionality (the response must be proportional to the threat), and discrimination (distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants). Just war pacifists call for careful evaluation of whether a war meets these moral standards before considering it justified.
  • Transformational Pacifism: Transformational pacifism goes beyond rejecting violence and war; it aims to create positive social change through nonviolent means. Transformational pacifists believe in the power of nonviolence to address systemic injustices, promote social equality, and foster peaceful coexistence. They draw inspiration from leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., who demonstrated how nonviolent actions can lead to significant social and political transformations.
  • Feminist Pacifism: Feminist pacifism looks at peace and conflict resolution from a gender perspective. Feminist pacifists highlight the connections between violence, patriarchy, and militarism. They advocate for including women’s voices in peace processes, demilitarizing societies, and finding nonviolent alternatives to traditional security measures. Feminist pacifists also critique the gendered aspects of war and violence and emphasize care, empathy, and relational ethics in peacebuilding efforts.

 Conclusion:

       Pacifism, in its various forms, offers different perspectives on rejecting violence and pursuing peace. Whether through absolute nonviolence, conditional acceptance of force, strict just war criteria, transformative social change, or a gender-conscious approach, pacifism consistently upholds the core principle of nonviolence. By understanding these different types of pacifism, we can appreciate the diverse ways in which pacifists strive to create a more peaceful and just world. Each type of pacifism contributes uniquely to the ongoing dialogue about how to achieve and maintain peace in a world often marred by conflict and violence.

Question 6 :- Write a note on transformational pacifism and non violence from Gandhian Perspective

 Introduction:

       Transformational pacifism and nonviolence are powerful ideas that emphasize the use of peaceful means to create significant social, political, and moral changes. Mahatma Gandhi, a major proponent of nonviolence, developed a philosophy called Satyagraha, meaning “truth force” or “soul force.” Gandhi’s approach to nonviolence offers deep insights into how peaceful resistance can transform society and individuals.

  • Satyagraha as a Tool for Transformation: Gandhi believed that nonviolence, practiced with bravery and commitment, could challenge oppressive systems, confront injustices, and bring about positive changes. Satyagraha is not just a passive act but an active force that aims to awaken the conscience of both the oppressor and the oppressed. Through nonviolent resistance, people can push for change without resorting to violence.
  • Nonviolence as a Moral Imperative: For Gandhi, nonviolence was not just a strategy but a moral duty based on the belief in the inherent dignity and worth of every person. He emphasized respecting the humanity of adversaries and engaging in dialogue and reconciliation instead of violence. Nonviolence, according to Gandhi, is essential for maintaining ethical conduct and achieving social justice.
  • Ahimsa (Nonviolence) and Truth: Central to Gandhi’s philosophy is the principle of Ahimsa, meaning nonviolence and non-harming. Gandhi believed that Ahimsa goes beyond avoiding physical violence; it also means avoiding hatred, malice, and ill-will toward others. He saw truth (Satya) and nonviolence (Ahimsa) as inseparable, guiding principles for ethical behavior and social activism.
  • Courage and Strength in Nonviolence: Gandhi distinguished between passive resistance and active nonviolence. He stressed that nonviolence requires courage, strength, and a strong commitment to truth and justice. Nonviolence, according to Gandhi, is a weapon of the strong, not the weak. It demands a steadfast resolve to face injustice without resorting to violence.
  • Self-Transformation and Social Change: Gandhi believed that nonviolence leads to both personal transformation and social change. He insisted that individuals must embody nonviolent values in their own lives before they can effectively promote peace and justice in society. Gandhi’s focus on self-discipline, self-restraint, and self-sacrifice highlights the transformative potential of nonviolent actions.

 Conclusion:

        Transformational pacifism and nonviolence from a Gandhian perspective offer a comprehensive approach to resolving conflicts, achieving social justice, and fostering moral growth. By adhering to the principles of truth, nonviolence, and personal transformation, people can work towards building a more just, compassionate, and peaceful world. Gandhi’s teachings show that through dialogue, understanding, and nonviolent resistance, it is possible to resolve conflicts and create lasting positive change.

Question 7 :- Elaborate pacifism and cosmopolitanism from the Kantian deontological ethical perspective

 Introduction:

      Pacifism and cosmopolitanism offer unique views on peace, justice, and moral duties in a global context. Immanuel Kant, a key figure in moral philosophy, provides principles that help us understand these ideas. Kant’s deontological ethics, which focus on duty and universal moral laws, can be applied to both pacifism and cosmopolitanism. This perspective emphasizes the importance of respecting human dignity and fostering a peaceful global community.

  1. Pacifism from a Kantian Perspective
  • Duty and Universalizability: In Kantian ethics, moral actions must follow the categorical imperative, meaning one should act only according to rules that could be applied universally. Pacifism, which opposes war and violence, fits well with this idea. It stresses the duty to respect every person’s dignity and rights. Kantian pacifism highlights the importance of avoiding harm and finding nonviolent solutions to conflicts.
  • Respect for Persons: Kant emphasizes the autonomy and rationality of individuals, meaning we should respect others’ moral agency. Pacifism aligns with this by rejecting violence and coercion, which infringe on others’ autonomy. Instead, it promotes peaceful conflict resolution and the protection of human rights. From a Kantian viewpoint, pacifism prioritizes nonviolent means to uphold dignity and justice.
  1. Cosmopolitanism from a Kantian Perspective
  • Universal Moral Community: Kantian cosmopolitanism envisions a global moral community where everyone shares a sense of duty and justice. It extends the principles of autonomy and equality to the international level, recognizing the interconnectedness of all people. This view supports the idea that we all have moral responsibilities to each other, regardless of national boundaries.
  • Perpetual Peace: In his essay “Perpetual Peace,” Kant outlines a vision for a world without war, achieved through a federation of states committed to justice and mutual respect. Cosmopolitanism, according to Kant, involves resolving conflicts through dialogue, diplomacy, and international laws. It promotes a peaceful global order where countries work together for the common good of humanity.
  1. Intersection of Pacifism and Cosmopolitanism
  • Ethical Duty and Global Justice: Both pacifism and cosmopolitanism emphasize the ethical duty to uphold justice, nonviolence, and human dignity worldwide. Pacifism advocates for rejecting war and violence as conflict resolution methods, while cosmopolitanism stresses shared moral obligations towards all people. Together, they highlight the importance of a peaceful and just global community.
  • Peace as a Moral Imperative: Kantian ethics underline the moral imperative of promoting peace, cooperation, and respect among individuals and states. Both pacifism and cosmopolitanism, seen through a Kantian lens, emphasize interconnected moral duties, the pursuit of justice, and the creation of a peaceful world order based on reason, autonomy, and universal moral laws.

 Conclusion:

      Pacifism and cosmopolitanism, viewed from a Kantian perspective, offer complementary visions of a peaceful and just world. They emphasize moral duties, universal principles, and the inherent worth of every individual. Kantian ethics provide a strong foundation for advocating nonviolence, global cooperation, and the pursuit of a more just and peaceful world. By focusing on the principles of duty, respect for persons, and global moral responsibilities, we can work towards a world where peace and justice prevail.

Question 8 :- Explain the feminist care ethics perspective as a critique of the different notions of pacifism

 Introduction:

         Feminist care ethics provides a unique view on pacifism by focusing on relationships, empathy, and interconnectedness in making ethical decisions and resolving conflicts. Developed by scholars like Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings, care ethics critiques traditional pacifism, which may overlook the importance of care, vulnerability, and relationships in peacebuilding. This approach offers a deeper and more compassionate perspective on achieving peace and resolving conflicts.

  • Emphasis on Relationships and Interconnectedness: Feminist care ethics highlights the role of relationships and interconnectedness in moral decision-making. Unlike traditional pacifism, which often focuses on abstract principles or rights, care ethics stresses empathy, compassion, and attentiveness to others’ needs. This approach challenges simple views of conflict and peace by recognizing the complex social, emotional, and ethical connections in human interactions.
  • Critique of Abstract Principles: Care ethics criticizes the abstract and universal principles commonly linked with traditional pacifism. It argues that these principles might ignore the specific experiences and contexts of individuals. Feminist scholars suggest that strict adherence to abstract nonviolence principles may fail to address the complexities of real-world conflicts, where care, empathy, and understanding are crucial for genuine peace and reconciliation.
  • Focus on Vulnerability and Dependency: Feminist care ethics emphasizes vulnerability and dependency, challenging the idea that pacifism should be based only on strength, autonomy, and self-reliance. Care ethics recognizes that individuals are inherently vulnerable and that it’s essential to address the care needs of those affected by violence and conflict. This perspective critiques pacifist approaches that might ignore the responsibilities to care for marginalized or vulnerable populations.
  • Ethics of Care in Peacebuilding: Care ethics provides a framework for rethinking peacebuilding and conflict resolution using principles of care, empathy, and relationships. By focusing on the experiences and voices of those most affected by violence, care ethics advocates for a more inclusive and compassionate approach to peace. It prioritizes healing, reconciliation, and restoring relationships. This challenges traditional pacifist strategies that might prioritize abstract nonviolence ideals over the concrete needs of individuals in conflict situations.
  • Intersectionality and Diversity: Feminist care ethics highlights the importance of intersectionality and diversity in understanding and addressing conflicts. It recognizes the various aspects of identity, power, and privilege that shape individuals’ experiences. Care ethics critiques simplistic or one-size-fits-all pacifism approaches. This perspective calls for a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of peace, considering the diverse needs, perspectives, and voices of all individuals in conflict situations.

 Conclusion:

      Feminist care ethics offers a valuable critique of traditional pacifism by emphasizing relationships, empathy, vulnerability, and intersectionality in ethical decision-making and peacebuilding. By focusing on care, compassion, and relationality, care ethics enhances our understanding of pacifism and provides a more holistic and inclusive approach to promoting peace and justice in diverse and complex contexts. This perspective encourages us to consider the human connections and care responsibilities essential for achieving lasting peace.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS :-

  • What is pacifism? Explain in detail it’s different types

  • Discuss Walzer’s account of Jus ad bellum(Right to War) and Jus in bello (Justice during Wars).

  • Explain the justifications of war provided by Micheal Walzer in his theory of just and unjust wars?

  • Elaborate pacifism and cosmopolitanism from the Kantian deontological ethical perspective.

Important Note for Students:-  These questions are crucial for your preparation, offering insights into exam patterns. Yet, remember to explore beyond for a comprehensive understanding.

Scroll to Top