Michael Walzer on the Moral Legitimacy of States and the Morality of Killing in War

This thesis is divided into two chapters. In the first chapter, I analyze Michael Walzer's account of the moral legitimacy of states. In the second chapter, I analyze his account of the morality of killing in war. I begin the first chapter by contrasting Walzer's account of state legitimacy and humanitarian intervention with that of David Luban. Next, I develop a Rawlsian account of state legitimacy and humanitarian intervention and argue that this account is more plausible than both Walzer's and Luban's accounts. The second chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part, I argue that Walzer's account of the distinction between combatants and noncombatants is misleading because it gives the impression that all and only infantry soldiers are combatants and that all and only civilians are noncombatants. In the second part of the second chapter, I describe an account of the morality of killing in war developed by Jeff McMahan that is based on an analogy with the morality of killing in domestic society and argue that this account is more plausible than Walzer's account of the morality of killing in war. I also suggest a way that McMahan's account could be improved.

Name thesis:degree_name

Master of Arts

Level thesis:degree_level

masters

Discipline thesis:degree_discipline

Philosophy

Department dc:contributor.department

Philosophy

Grantor dc:publisher

Virginia Tech

Year dc:date.issued

2006

Author dc:creator

• Mueller, Nathan

Chair dc:contributor.committeechair

• FitzPatrick, William J.

Committee members dc:contributor.committeemember

• Daskal, Steven J.
• May, Simon

• combatant
• ethics
• intervention
• military

Statement dc:rights

• In Copyright

Licence dc:rights.uri

• http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Dc Identifier Other

etd-05232006-155309

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/33155