The REAL realism?
Waltzer – Substantive
I have been studying IR theory for a few years now and this is the first substantial book on the role of morality in war that I have read or heard of. Of course, Thomas Aquinas is often referenced to the theory of just war as are many secular proponents, but Waltzer’s method just seems different. Mr. Waltzer is not attempting a completely detached theory or justice from the reality of war, idealism, he seems to be intermixing normative and practical approaches. What he seems to claim at the beginning of the book is that realism is not a true account of what life is really like, or perhaps the view of realism is not quite accurate in its undertaking. On the Melian Dialogue, Waltzer says: “For all its realism, however, it fails to get at the realities of that experience or to explain its character” (11). Realism without morality just isn’t real, it is a view of life that is distanced from actual perception. He calls this view the “moral reality of war…all those experiences of which moral language is descriptive or within which it is necessarily employed” (15).
Mr. Waltzer uses lots of examples that people would not immediately choose to further an argument of justice. The reason for doing so would be to show that war may not only be just from the side of the victor. For example, he gives several incidents of justice shown on the part of the axis powers, especially Germany. He is also successful in turning the six days war, carried out by the Israeli army, normally considered to be a preventive attack into a justifiable attack in the course of a war that had already existed (82). Mr. Waltzer likes to keep us on our toes, perhaps to not accept what is readily acceptable and to question the moral foundation of every decision we make and every decision that is made, either by ourselves or from above. Not to move off the topic but I was watching a program on PBS this weekend which was filmed in the late 70’s, roughly about the time of this book that seemed to follow it in pretty good detail. In any case, the narrator pointed out the fact that Stalin was totally against the war crimes tribunal of Nuremberg. He just couldn’t understand why we allowed for the Nazi ringleaders to explain their actions. He suggested that they be lined up and executed at one time to which Harry Truman thought was a joke and laughed.
So is realism in it’s current view really realism, considering that it acknowledges morality on a limited basis only to mask true reasons? And even if morality were used as a façade of true perceptions then why do people feel the need to mask their true reasons? Why does mankind restrain actions, hide perceptions, and feel the need to justify actions?
I have been studying IR theory for a few years now and this is the first substantial book on the role of morality in war that I have read or heard of. Of course, Thomas Aquinas is often referenced to the theory of just war as are many secular proponents, but Waltzer’s method just seems different. Mr. Waltzer is not attempting a completely detached theory or justice from the reality of war, idealism, he seems to be intermixing normative and practical approaches. What he seems to claim at the beginning of the book is that realism is not a true account of what life is really like, or perhaps the view of realism is not quite accurate in its undertaking. On the Melian Dialogue, Waltzer says: “For all its realism, however, it fails to get at the realities of that experience or to explain its character” (11). Realism without morality just isn’t real, it is a view of life that is distanced from actual perception. He calls this view the “moral reality of war…all those experiences of which moral language is descriptive or within which it is necessarily employed” (15).
Mr. Waltzer uses lots of examples that people would not immediately choose to further an argument of justice. The reason for doing so would be to show that war may not only be just from the side of the victor. For example, he gives several incidents of justice shown on the part of the axis powers, especially Germany. He is also successful in turning the six days war, carried out by the Israeli army, normally considered to be a preventive attack into a justifiable attack in the course of a war that had already existed (82). Mr. Waltzer likes to keep us on our toes, perhaps to not accept what is readily acceptable and to question the moral foundation of every decision we make and every decision that is made, either by ourselves or from above. Not to move off the topic but I was watching a program on PBS this weekend which was filmed in the late 70’s, roughly about the time of this book that seemed to follow it in pretty good detail. In any case, the narrator pointed out the fact that Stalin was totally against the war crimes tribunal of Nuremberg. He just couldn’t understand why we allowed for the Nazi ringleaders to explain their actions. He suggested that they be lined up and executed at one time to which Harry Truman thought was a joke and laughed.
So is realism in it’s current view really realism, considering that it acknowledges morality on a limited basis only to mask true reasons? And even if morality were used as a façade of true perceptions then why do people feel the need to mask their true reasons? Why does mankind restrain actions, hide perceptions, and feel the need to justify actions?
posted by Holly at 4:42 PM
<< Home