What do you think?
Rate this book
Arguing About War
A provocative discussion of recent wars and the issues that surround them, written by a preeminent political theorist
Michael Walzer is one of the world’s most eminent philosophers on the subject of war and ethics. Now, for the first time since his classic Just and Unjust Wars was published almost three decades ago, this volume brings together his most provocative arguments about contemporary military conflicts and the ethical issues they raise.
The essays in the book are divided into three sections. The first deals with issues such as humanitarian intervention, emergency ethics, and terrorism. The second consists of Walzer’s responses to particular wars, including the first Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And the third presents an essay in which Walzer imagines a future in which war might play a less significant part in our lives. In his introduction, Walzer reveals how his thinking has changed over time.
Written during a period of intense debate over the proper use of armed force, this book gets to the heart of difficult problems and argues persuasively for a moral perspective on war.
Michael Walzer is one of the world’s most eminent philosophers on the subject of war and ethics. Now, for the first time since his classic Just and Unjust Wars was published almost three decades ago, this volume brings together his most provocative arguments about contemporary military conflicts and the ethical issues they raise.
The essays in the book are divided into three sections. The first deals with issues such as humanitarian intervention, emergency ethics, and terrorism. The second consists of Walzer’s responses to particular wars, including the first Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And the third presents an essay in which Walzer imagines a future in which war might play a less significant part in our lives. In his introduction, Walzer reveals how his thinking has changed over time.
Written during a period of intense debate over the proper use of armed force, this book gets to the heart of difficult problems and argues persuasively for a moral perspective on war.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
10 people are currently reading
307 people want to read
About the author
Michael Walzer
115 books153 followersMichael Walzer is a Jewish American political philosopher and public intellectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, he is editor of the political-intellectual quarterly Dissent. He has written books and essays on a wide range of topics, including just and unjust wars, nationalism, ethnicity, economic justice, social criticism, radicalism, tolerance, and political obligation and is a contributing editor to The New Republic. To date, he has written 27 books and published over 300 articles, essays, and book reviews in Dissent, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and many scholarly journals
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
November 12, 2014
Libyan revolution was at one time seen as the lone example of a successful UN intervention (no boots on the ground).But now, four years after the revolution, the murder of Qaddafi and the collapse of his regime, Libya is still undergoing an upsurge in instability. As I write these words, there's a war in my city - Benghazi - between the national army and a coalition of ex-rebels militias and fundamentalists (primarily, Ansar Al-Sharia which follows the same path as ISIS). Some analysts believe it is a civil war, keeping in mind that the people of Libya do not believe nor hope it to be so.
Though, to get to our subject here. I think that moral dilemmas and paradoxes which are thought-provoking, would be my summary of this book. To read this is critical, especially now, with the expansion of global media where it has made it possible to be more aware and conscious of wars, particularly domestic conflicts in third world countries. One is strongly inclined to have an opinion of whether the intervention of superior states (for humanitarian reasons at least) is justifiable.
What I admired about the book is that the author tries vigorously to argue for all sides. An example would be that some people denounce this so-called "just war" theory - which is the central idea of the book - because justifying the war or putting it in moral terms, when we obviously know that it results in the killing of people. Which as a principle should never be justified (at least as pacifists go).
The author goes further to say that justifiable cases are ones we consider "morally necessary" compared with other available alternatives. In my opinion, intervention (along with its casualties) is aimed to prevent further deaths and damage. Yet this, in practical grounds, has proved many times that it can only complicate things more. Should the boots on the ground method be used? If so, how and when is it best to apply an exit strategy? And if we ran to other options like airstrikes (bombing) or even economic sanctions, in what way will they be realistically effective? But if one negates all this and no action is taken, would be free of any kind of moral guilt?
Though, to get to our subject here. I think that moral dilemmas and paradoxes which are thought-provoking, would be my summary of this book. To read this is critical, especially now, with the expansion of global media where it has made it possible to be more aware and conscious of wars, particularly domestic conflicts in third world countries. One is strongly inclined to have an opinion of whether the intervention of superior states (for humanitarian reasons at least) is justifiable.
What I admired about the book is that the author tries vigorously to argue for all sides. An example would be that some people denounce this so-called "just war" theory - which is the central idea of the book - because justifying the war or putting it in moral terms, when we obviously know that it results in the killing of people. Which as a principle should never be justified (at least as pacifists go).
The author goes further to say that justifiable cases are ones we consider "morally necessary" compared with other available alternatives. In my opinion, intervention (along with its casualties) is aimed to prevent further deaths and damage. Yet this, in practical grounds, has proved many times that it can only complicate things more. Should the boots on the ground method be used? If so, how and when is it best to apply an exit strategy? And if we ran to other options like airstrikes (bombing) or even economic sanctions, in what way will they be realistically effective? But if one negates all this and no action is taken, would be free of any kind of moral guilt?
April 27, 2008
The more I think about this book, the more I realize that it is immeasurably good when engaging in the discussion of morality and ethics in international relations. The only thing I'd really change is some of the repetitive wordiness, but as far as academic books go, one of the least painful I've had to endure.
May 20, 2008
This is a pretty good collection of essays analyzing ethical aspects of modern warfare. His Just War is more famous and probably more important, but this book tries to update his theories for a terrorist-centered warfighting era.
July 19, 2017
This book is useful for politicians who wish to learn or relay mindless cliches and empty aphorisms in support of war, but it should be avoided for people wishing to actually think about war. The author is pragmatic and parochial frankly to the point of cynicism. His writing betrays as much.
He sets out to characterise wars against the powers he personally aligns himself with as "terrorism" — or, more accurately, he characterises "terrorism" as immoral since it amounts to a first hand experience of acts of war — "terrorism" is any act of war against us by them, therefore it is wrong. Perpetrating acts of war on civilian others, however, e.g., the British bombing of civilian targets in German cities, the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these can be justified if they achieve some tactical, instrumental militaristic task for the nation's' larger geopolitical goals. This rank hypocrisy is not even noticed by the author who takes it for granted that when he can imagine experiencing the violence against civilian targets, then it is wrong while when he can imagine perpetrating the violence on civilian targets, it can be acceptable. There is no word on why his privileged perspective should confer a moral status on the acts of violence that target civilians.
As for questioning whether war itself is ever necessary, he begins by asserting that certain problems cry out for a violent solution. Yet he does not ask if the violence ever actually resolves or prevents or alleviates the situations that he regards as justifying it. Instead, he regards taking power seriously as requiring us to endorse the use of war. In a single sentence, he summarily dismisses any fundamental critique of war (critique meaning we ask if wars accomplish their goals better than some null hypothesis of diplomacy, sanctions, non-belligerent coercive political pressure) as simply a symptom of refusing to think about being in power. This reckless insouciance indicates a deeply sanguine cynicism or cynical sanguinity on the part of the author. It is not the attitude of a genuine philosopher or serious writer on the arguments about war.
He sets out to characterise wars against the powers he personally aligns himself with as "terrorism" — or, more accurately, he characterises "terrorism" as immoral since it amounts to a first hand experience of acts of war — "terrorism" is any act of war against us by them, therefore it is wrong. Perpetrating acts of war on civilian others, however, e.g., the British bombing of civilian targets in German cities, the US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these can be justified if they achieve some tactical, instrumental militaristic task for the nation's' larger geopolitical goals. This rank hypocrisy is not even noticed by the author who takes it for granted that when he can imagine experiencing the violence against civilian targets, then it is wrong while when he can imagine perpetrating the violence on civilian targets, it can be acceptable. There is no word on why his privileged perspective should confer a moral status on the acts of violence that target civilians.
As for questioning whether war itself is ever necessary, he begins by asserting that certain problems cry out for a violent solution. Yet he does not ask if the violence ever actually resolves or prevents or alleviates the situations that he regards as justifying it. Instead, he regards taking power seriously as requiring us to endorse the use of war. In a single sentence, he summarily dismisses any fundamental critique of war (critique meaning we ask if wars accomplish their goals better than some null hypothesis of diplomacy, sanctions, non-belligerent coercive political pressure) as simply a symptom of refusing to think about being in power. This reckless insouciance indicates a deeply sanguine cynicism or cynical sanguinity on the part of the author. It is not the attitude of a genuine philosopher or serious writer on the arguments about war.
March 30, 2025
Una serie di articoli che trattano concetti come la "guerra giusta", gli interventi umanitari e il terrorismo.
La prima parte affronta questi concetti a livello teorico, la seconda li applica nei casi concreti e l'ultima prova ad immaginare un futuro per l'ordine internazionale.
Il testo offre diversi spunti interessanti, ma, per quanto mi riguarda, trovo la visione di Walzer troppo apologetica nei confronti degli Stati e della loro possibilità di "interferire" in circostanze non sempre chiare.
Inoltre, non condivido molti pensieri sul conflitto israelo-palestinese, da cui sembrerebbe che solo Israele stia facendo sforzi per la pace, affermazione quanto meno discutibile.
Nel complesso, lettura interessante, ma sempre da guardare con occhio critico, specialmente considerato il periodo post 9/11 in cui è stato scritto.
La prima parte affronta questi concetti a livello teorico, la seconda li applica nei casi concreti e l'ultima prova ad immaginare un futuro per l'ordine internazionale.
Il testo offre diversi spunti interessanti, ma, per quanto mi riguarda, trovo la visione di Walzer troppo apologetica nei confronti degli Stati e della loro possibilità di "interferire" in circostanze non sempre chiare.
Inoltre, non condivido molti pensieri sul conflitto israelo-palestinese, da cui sembrerebbe che solo Israele stia facendo sforzi per la pace, affermazione quanto meno discutibile.
Nel complesso, lettura interessante, ma sempre da guardare con occhio critico, specialmente considerato il periodo post 9/11 in cui è stato scritto.
October 22, 2022
Reading Walzer’s text nearly two decades after it was published, one can easily appreciate its temporality amid the broader cultural and intellectual milieu of its time: traumatized by the terror collectively experienced on 9/11, searching for an adequate target to launch a “proportional response” against, and accusatory of (leftist) anti-war activists who, ostensibly, share a common agenda with the terrorists (p. 135). Nevertheless, in spite of the anachronistic character of the text—or perhaps, because of it—Arguing About War remains an interesting work to consider, in the same vein as Clash of Civilizations.
May 30, 2019
Mesmo caso o leitor não concorde com todas os conceitos trazidos pelo autor sob a esfera do Neorealismo, é um livro obrigatório para o estudo teórico das Relações Internacionais. Traz concepções inovadoras e enriquece directamente esta tradição filosófica e política, tornando-se um dos fundadores do Neorealismo defensivo.
April 19, 2021
This was a follow up to Walzer's first book. The book brought his theories through current Iraq/Afghanistan military experiences in defining a Just War theories.
August 14, 2025
Thank God for Trump it certainly delays your thinking.
December 2, 2025
"Arguing About War" by Michael Walzer is an insightful and thought-provoking collection of essays that delves deeply into the ethical challenges presented by contemporary military conflicts. As a renowned philosopher in the field of war and ethics, Walzer offers a compelling update to his earlier work, "Just and Unjust Wars," reflecting on how his perspectives have evolved. The book is structured into three cohesive sections: addressing broad issues like nuclear deterrence and terrorism, analyzing specific conflicts such as the Gulf War and Iraq, and envisioning a future with diminished warfare. Walzer's skillful arguments and moral reasoning provide readers with a nuanced understanding of complex issues, encouraging a thoughtful examination of the moral implications of war. This book is a must-read for those interested in philosophy, international relations, and political ethics.
March 9, 2017
Walzer, here, has made a clear argument. However, although it may be clear, it is by no means sound. Easy to pick apart using either Kantian morality or Utilitarianism. A decent read, Walzer definitely recognises a gap in our framework but fails to fill it.
March 21, 2007
a must-read after just and unjust wars.
September 9, 2007
A follow-up to "Just and Unjust War" with case four very interesting modern case studies.
January 11, 2009
It's pretty bad, dont' waste your time.
November 2, 2009
Devastatingly, I feel like Walzer has lost the idealism of his Just and Unjust Wars.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews