Just and Unjust Killing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
174 Downloads (Pure)


To provide a way to understand warfare and debate military conduct, Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars tries to show that civilians and soldiers are not separated by a barrier of violence as we might think, but rather inhabit the same moral world. While this view enables us to question and criticize our leaders during times of war instead of simply claiming ignorance, its success is gained by obscuring certain fundamental boundaries that exist between combatants and noncombatants. By comparing Walzer's just war theory with the existential theories of Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger, we can therefore find a more complete picture of what it means to declare war and what it means to engage in combat. This will allow us to see that what separates the soldier from the civilian is our everyday avoidance of death and anything associated with it. Through an investigation into the relationship between death and killing it can then be asked, from an existential standpoint, whether we can call any war ‘just’ so long as our evasion of death also results in our evasion of what soldiers must go through to protect us, thus preventing the soldier from being able truly to return home.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)247-261
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Military Ethics
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2008


  • just war theory
  • Michael Walzer
  • Jean-Paul Sartre
  • Martin Heidegger
  • military ethics


Dive into the research topics of 'Just and Unjust Killing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this