Justice and morality in war are important now more than ever given the current situation in Iraq, Michael Walzer explained to an audience in Logan Hall yesterday afternoon.
Following a brief introduction, Walzer, a respected author and morality scholar, began the lecture by explaining his "Just War" theory to the audience of approximately 100 students, teachers and guests.
The theory, which Walzer said arose out of critiques of holy wars, defines a "just war" as a "war that is morally necessary given the alternatives." In addition, he asserted that a just war can be fought unjustly, and an unjust war can be fought justly.
Walzer told the audience that because the war in Iraq was based on the concept of a pre-emptive strike, it was based on conjecture and therefore unjust.
However, Walzer spent most of the lecture explaining how the theory related to the rules of war.
"The rules of war are much different than the rules of everyday life," he said. "They are adapted to [war's] hardness."
Walzer asserted the so-called rules of war arose out of the need to protect non-combatants from harm during conflicts.
In the recent American invasion of Iraq, the rules of war were utilized in the U.S. military's decision to use precision bombing against military and government targets, attempting to minimize Iraqi civilian deaths.
But the rules of war cannot make it impossible to fight a war.
"If the enemy is fighting with tanks, it is just to attack those tanks on the field and on the assembly line," Walzer said.
Walzer tried to define "non-combatants" -- distinguishing between a farmer whose crops feed soldiers and someone who produces weapons for them. The latter, he asserted, could be a just target.
He described the act of surrender as the procedure by which soldiers become non-combatants, and their captors promise to treat their prisoners fairly. He also warned against fake surrenders, because they "eliminate the possibility of future surrender."
Walzer slowed the pace of the lecture by opening up the talk to questions.
One audience member asked if soldiers could be held morally responsible for a war they believed was unjust.
Walzer responded that governments must recognize conscientious objectors to war. In addition, if all of the most conscientious objectors did not fight, it would make the war all the more brutal.
After approximately 20 minutes of questions, the lecture was followed by a small reception.
Audience members said they found the speech intriguing.
"He was very insightful, and he touched on a lot of underlying themes people don't usually consider," College senior Spiros Kulubis said.
"Walzer did a good job of expressing moral doctrine on a variety of topics and applying it to the current situation in Iraq," said Samuel Freeman, director of the Philosophy, Political Science and Economics Department, which sponsored the event.
