Walzer raises serious questions about the Supreme Emergency vs. the political need for unconditional surrender.In Chapter 16 of Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer affirms a doctrine he calls Supreme Emergency and rejects a doctrine he calls the Sliding Scale. The doctrines concern the question, how to interpret the moral right of noncombatant immunity (along with the rights and duties of combatants) in just warfare doctrine. In this chapter, Walzer examines both Nazi Germany and the Japanese aggression on Pearl Harbor in this section. The question about the English trying to destroying Nazi Germany seems fairly straight forward since Hitler was trying to conquer all of Europe and instituting genocide in all acquired German lands. Yet, even with the evils of Nazism, there are questions raised by historians about “bombing German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombings.” (pg 261) The attack of Japan is not as settled, since the use of atomic weapons was so unprecedented and the destruction so immense. Walzer raises the question whether the United States’ attack on Japan was a Supreme Emergency or was it psychological, that the American people needed to show that they were strong and perhaps for the American leaders to prove their leadership to their constituency. Similar questions may be raised after 9/11 when America attacked Iraq. Was the extreme use of force needed to prevent an enemy from overthrowing the United States Government?
In a discussion, please consider the 6 Criteriafor a just war found on page 176 and apply it to the bombing of Japan during WWII. Does the bombing of Japan also constitute a Supreme Emergency triggering the need to an atomic response?
Here are two contradictory reports from two respectable sources. Also use the reading from Walzer which I’ve provided.
Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism calls Rights, Nonsense on Stilts; however, it is often the language we use in society to discuss our most difficult issues. In the Rights Theory, there are both positive and negative rights. The application of these rights are something agreed upon differently based on one’s political perspective. Typically, everyone believes in negative rights, that is the right to be left alone. The positive rights, the right to demand an action from another person is a bit more controversial.Below are images from social and political campaigns which use rights as their justification for their stances. The problem with using Rights as the means for ethical decision making is that one person can say, “I have a right to ….” and the response can be “No you don’t.” From these two contradictory positions, how do we move forward? This may be part of the reason we have been fighting the same battles for decades on many of the same issues. Below are opposing positions on an issue both using Rights Theory as its justification. Pick one or any other similar dispute which uses Rights Theory on both sides and do an analysis. Please note that this is NOT an opinion paper. I am looking for an analysis using the theories. This is a test of your ability to use the material, but it is also a test not to get triggered into a heated opinion piece.
You can give me a concise introduction and conclusion but I also what three paragraphs of analysis. In your conclusion, you can give me an opinion of which theory you think is most useful. This essay should be between 2-3 pages double spaced, 12 pt Times New Roman font, with 1 inch margins.
Paragraph 1, make a Rights Theory argument for side 1.
Paragraph 2, make a Rights Theory argument for side 2.
Paragraph 3, use Utilitarianism or Virtue Ethics to do an analysis of the case.
When you do a Rights Theory analysis, please use the the material from the textbook as your guide and not just my explanation above. Note that there are declarations of rights agreed upon by certain societies and there are also positive and negative rights. Use the Turnitin link below to submit the assignment.
(Pick one or any other similar dispute which uses Rights Theory on both sides and do an analysis. You can give me a brief introduction and conclusion but I also what three paragraphs of analysis. Paragraph 1, make a Rights Theory argument for side 1. Paragraph 2, make a Rights Theory argument for side 2. Paragraph 3, use Utilitarianism or Virtue Ethics to do an analysis of the case.)