This is a book analyzing Michael Walzer's philosophical musings on the broad topics of just war theory and distributive justice. Walzer has written many books and articles on these themes, rising to become one of the foremost thinkers on such subjects in the late 20th century.
Brian Orend places Walzer's work in the context of other philosophers and policy experts, and sifts through Walzer's ideas to identify their particular strengths and weaknesses. He also adds his own opinions and even attempts to extend Walzer's theory into an area that Walzer had not previously studied deeply. Readers should certainly be familiar with Walzer's work before diving into this book, as little background is given.
One thing to be aware of, however, is that this is not quite an ordinary book. It is clearly Orend's Ph.D. thesis. He has done a fine job analyzing Walzer, but at times the writing sags into that "I-have-to-do-this-to-graduate" tone that all grad students can relate to. Also, Orend shows some lack of sophistication in parts of his analyses, digging too deeply into trivial issues or breezing over sections that ought to be more carefully unpacked. Overall, I'll give the book a "0".
Probably part of that rating is that it's just not a topic I'm enormously excited about. I have read Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars," and found it intriguing and relevant. I have read many of the classic philosophers from which just war theory draws, such as Kant and Hobbes. But in the end, this book is commentary on top of commentary, something that philosophers revel in, but the rest of us need to take in small doses.
Orend starts with a summary of Walzer's key points in the theories of just war and distributive justice. He explains the stance from which Walzer approaches these topics, and the reasons why they are united even though they seem rather different. (Just war theory concerns how to deal with what Walzer believes are inevitable conflicts between nation states on the world stage, while distributive justice is concerned with doling out goods and value fairly within a nation state).
Just war theory is called a "thin" theory, meaning that it consists of a subset of principles that are common across the varied principles of various countries. The assumption is that one can take the union of all "thick," particular concepts of justice and morality to arrive at the broad, thin one. Distributive justice is clearly thick. I found myself questioning the validity of this assumption, as well as the choice of vocabulary. While the meanings are clear, the "thin" morality seems more substantial to me (if it exists at all) since it represents something truly fundamental. I kept bristling at the terminology.
Orend does a fairly thorough job of analyzing Walzer's ideas based on his published works. He identifies a couple of logical flaws and places where Walzer is skating on thin ice, so to speak. Much of this analysis concerns jus ad bellum, the justice of declaring war, and jus in bello, the justice of fighting well. While Walzer makes a strong point of separating these two, Orend nicely demonstrates that they are more closely tied than Walzer will admit.
Orend then digs into just post bellum, the justice of ending the war well. This is an area where Walzer has been a bit circumspect, waving his hands more than articulating a solid theory. Orend attempts to extend Walzer's ideas by formulating some principles for jus post bellum consistent with the spirit of Walzer's earlier work. I found this section somewhat unsatisfying. Orend's points are not well fleshed out; he should write a whole book rather that a short chapter on this topic (and perhaps he will when he is a postdoc).
I also thought the book ended on a low note. Orend's final chapter that is supposed to sum up and firmly situate Walzer in the constellation of war theorists instead read like a whirlwind tour of the last 350 years of philosophy. Orend dashes around the ideological landscape, bringing in concepts from Kant, Mill, Hobbes, Hegel, Rousseau, Rorty, Dewey, and others. Enough already! This section seemed designed to convince a faculty committee that he had spent a lot of time reading during graduate school.
"Michael Walzer on War and Justice" is not exactly grab-you-out-of-your-chair reading, but it is an interesting exploration of where Walzer fits in the broad philosophical picture. It would be a good guide for other war theorists seeking to acquaint themselves with the major axes of war theory and the positions of various thinkers, especially Walzer, along those axes.
Copyright © Kim Allen 2002
