aggression

atomic bombing of Hiroshima

common life

complex equality

critic

criticism

Democrat

global justice - local justice

just peace

just war theory

justice

modern dormitory suburbs

simple equality

social criticism

society of citizens

supreme emergency

terrorism

thick morality

thick self

thin morality

thin self

tolerance

use of force

war convention

nationality

American

occupation / innovator as

public intellectual

political theorist

university professor

Princeton - Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) - Princeton

Princeton University

Dissent

philosopher

university teacher

political scientist

sociologist

politician

scientific organization

American Philosophical Society

American Academy of Arts and Sciences

is every violation of the territorial integrity and political sovereignty of an independent state.

every violation of the territorial integrity and political sovereignty of an independent state.

is an action that was ultimately not a case of supreme emergency, but rather an act of political terror.

Michael Walzer has argued that Hiroshima was not a case of supreme emergency, but rather an act of political terror'

is on our radar. Try again later or consider contributing!

is one who gives expression to his people's deepest sense of how they ought to live and serves as a prophet-like individual who is prepared to defy their local norms.

critic as one who 'gives expression to his people's deepest sense of how they ought to live' the prophet-like individual who is prepared to defy their local norms.

is effective and can be said to count as criticism when it is delivered from a person who is a member of the society she is criticizing, should be directed towards society at large, and should be based solely on interpretation.

. . .'criticism should be directed towards society at large, and it should be based on the interpretation of values and meanings already embedded in society, because, as Walzer (ibid: 234) claims, this is the requirement of efficacy. From these convictions Walzer infers that to be counted as social criticism, criticism should be presented by a person who is a member of the society she is criticizing, should be directed towards society at large, and should be based solely on interpretation.' (trames 2000)

is a supporter of the universal rights of man, and he wants those rights to be recognized and exercised right now, but he is blind to the realities of the world he actually inhabits.

The democrat 'believes in the universal rights of man, and he wants those rights to be recognized and exercised right now' but 'he is blind to the realities of the world he actually inhabits. (Walzer, Michael)

is concerned not only with the distribution of income and wealth, but also the distribution of honor and respect, love and affection.

For Walzer, justice concerns not only the distribution of income and wealth and the assignment of political rights but also the distribution of honour and respect, religious offices, and even love and affection.

is pluralistic in form and involves a complex equality in which different social goods ought to be distributed for different reasons, in accordance with different procedures, (and) by different agents.

Arguing that ''the principles of justice are themselves pluralistic in form, (and) that different social goods ought to be distributed for different reasons, in accordance with different procedures, (and) by different agents,' Walzer (1983, p. 6) contends that a co1nmitment to protect the identity of and boundaries between these various spheres will preserve a complex equality and prevent powerful people fro1n violating standards, usurping goods, and invading spheres. In this way, persons with a social good like wealth will not be able to translate their advantage in the sphere of economics into a similar inonopoly in politics, education, or health care. Thus for Walzer, justice is better preserved by a decentralized latticework of autonomous goods, authorities and standards than by any single principle applied universally.

is the giving expression to one's people's deepest sense of how they ought to live and the prophet-like individual who is prepared to defy their local norms.

is the intrusion of fear into everyday life, the violation of private purposes, the insecurity of public spaces, the endless coerciveness of precaution.

for Walzer: terrorism is not only illegal and therefore morally worse than killing in war... it is worse even than the crime of murder.'This, then,' he writes, 'is the peculiar evil of terrorism-- not only the killing of innocent people but also the intrusion of fear into everyday life, the violation of private purposes, the insecurity of public spaces, the endless coerciveness of precaution. For Walzer, of course, it is not merely the deliberate creation of fear for political purposes that defines terrorism... the killing of innocents is a necessary (though not a sufficient) criterion. What Walzer condemns in war is excess and in terrorism its essence. States kill, too, of course, although they claim to kill only legitimately. But whether states, unlike terrorist, kill only those who are legitimately killable is partly what the rules of war address'

is involved with the question: How much should we tolerate the intolerant (such as minority religious groups)'.

In a 1997 work, Michael Walzer asked 'Should we tolerate the intolerant'' He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave 'as if they possessed this virtue'.[3](wiki)

Michael WalzerThinkers

Michael Walzer