

Ep. 373: Michael Walzer on Just Wars (Part Two)
12 snips Aug 18, 2025
Dive into the moral maze of just and unjust wars with Michael Walzer's insights. Discover when it might be acceptable to strike first or intervene in another country's affairs. The discussion navigates historical examples like the American Civil War and the Six-Day War, emphasizing the complexities of military justification. Explore the balance between state sovereignty and individual rights during humanitarian crises, and learn how historical context shapes perceptions of intervention. It's a thought-provoking examination of ethics in warfare!
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Imminence Is Too Narrow
- 'Imminent' is too narrow for justifying preemptive war; conflicts can feel unavoidable for long periods.
- Walzer expands the idea to a spectrum from last-minute response to broader anticipatory action.
Balance-Of-Power Justifications Fail
- Walzer rejects balance-of-power wars as illegitimate because they would justify constant conflict.
- He argues utilitarian peace is better served by avoiding wars to preserve stability.
Intent, Not Power, Matters
- Threat must be anchored to manifest intent, not vague power shifts or ambition.
- Walzer seeks signs that make hostile intent morally actionable, not mere speculation.