Moral Equvialent of War

 Blog Post

By: Joey Harrell

I’m basing my blog post on my final presentation on ‘’The Moral Equivalent of War’’ by William James. When presenting The Moral Equivalent of War I explained what James was talking about and then added my opinion based on what he wrote. The class was conflicted with my points in ‘’The Moral Equivalent of War’’ so I’m writing this blog post to furthermore explain my points. My points were in disagreement with William James' because I believed that World Peace is very unlikely to achieve. Mr. Oliver and other classmates disagreed with me because they believed that it could be obtained which I disagreed with. 

In “The Moral Equivalent of War”, William James discusses the presence of war and militarism in society. He argues that in order for military feelings to be abdicated, a substitute must be introduced. James argues that the virtues of war - including self-sacrifice, discipline, and a sense of purpose - should be redirected toward non-military endeavors. He suggests that society should create a "moral equivalent of war" to inspire citizens to work together for the common good. James primarily constructs his argument on the basis of history. He describes in vivid detail the massacres of Ancient Greece during the Peloponnesian Wars and the cruel practices of the Romans when they conquered Epirus. This highlights the brutality and irrationality of war by bringing out the worst of human history. William James was a Pacifist who believed that war and violence are unjustifiable. James suggests that the "moral equivalent of war" should be a cause that inspires people to work together with the same level of devotion and sacrifice that they bring to the battlefield. He suggests that this cause could be anything that requires self-discipline and self-sacrifice, from building infrastructure to fighting poverty to protecting the environment. He states that criticisms show the “bestial side of the military”. He decides that peace has lost meaning and is, instead, a synonym for “war expected”. This leads him to believe that men have developed a double personality when it comes to war. William James believes that it’s very possible to have world peace without the use of war and violence. In James' view, the moral equivalent of war would require individuals to use their personal interests and desires for the good of society as a whole. He argued that it would require a fundamental change in the way that people thought about themselves and their relationship to the world around them. Rather than seeing themselves as isolated individuals pursuing their own interests, individuals would need to see themselves as part of a larger community, working together towards a common goal. Many people agreed with William James just like former President Jimmy Carter. Just over 40 years ago Jimmy Carter did his  Moral Equivalent of War Speech which was based on William James’s approach to war/violence. I believe that William James' approach to war would be changed if he was to look at our world today. William James died 4 years before World War I which between World War I and World War II showcased over 76 million deaths. From World War I which was 4 years after William James died to the present day now with War between Russia and Ukraine, I believe that it’s impossible to have world peace in our modern world now. Many people may disagree with me, but with how conflicted our world is as of now I do not see world peace in William’s James approach possible. Violence has been in factor ever since World War I and with dictators all around the world it would be very hard to accomplish peace without War. There are many factors that come into play like technological advances, politics, cultural/religious beliefs, and human nature. Cyber warfare, terrorism, and the use of drones and other advanced weaponry have also changed the nature of conflict, making it harder to contain and control. Not to mention the power of Nuclear Weapons which can cause devastation to the whole planet.  Humans can be both cooperative and conflict. While peace is ideal, the reality is that individuals and groups are influenced by self-interest, competition, and the desire for power. This aspect of human nature makes it challenging to achieve world peace which is what William James believes we can achieve. Past conflicts can shape the present. Historical grievances and unresolved conflicts can get out of control and cause cycles of violence. Overcoming these issues requires forgiveness and a commitment to addressing historical injustices, which can be complex and time-consuming processes. Cultural and religious diversity is a source of beliefs that can also be a source of tension and conflict. Differences in values, beliefs, and identities can lead to prejudice and discrimination. These differences can be deeply ingrained and resistant to change, making it challenging to foster universal understanding and harmony. While it may be very challenging to achieve world peace I’m all for trying to achieve that goal one day. With all these factors in play listed above I believe it will be very hard to achieve that goal. I believe that someday we will have world peace, but even if world peace is possible it will never last forever. One can achieve world peace which is very slim, but if world peace was to happen it would only last so long. Despite these criticisms, the idea of the moral equivalent of war has continued to inspire thinkers and activists who seek to harness the moral force of collective action for peaceful ends.

Here below I will have a video of The Moral Equivalent of War along with a picture of William James that I wanted to include in my blog post. The video is the full audiobook version of The Moral Equivalent of War if you would like to listen to the full essay written by William James. I would love to hear your guy’s opinions and comments on my blog post and whether you agree with me or William James on the subject of World Peace.

The Moral Equivalent of War by William James (FULL Audiobook)