The Moral Equivalent of War

Nwamaka Obianwu  

Section #11 

            William James wrote an essay about the moral equivalent of war. The first line from “The Moral Equivalent of War” by William James expresses, “The war against war is going to be no holiday excursion or camping party.” This video gives a short but powerful summary of this essay.

 

This part stood out to me because I interpreted it as war will not end without a war. It will be a wager on it being peaceful. We will soon reach a point where war will be rare, but it is not inevitable. Hopefully, our generation or future generations can experience a world without a war but better negotiation. The next part discusses the paradoxical, self-contradictory between having the union expunged from history and transitioning to peace or people willing to go to another civil war with similar possessions. 

 

James then points out how hardly anyone answered those questions. I believe we should not erase history but learn from it, both the good and bad sides of history. Later, James talks about Greek history. He said it was a bunch of “panorama of jingoism and imperialism.” In the lamest terms, He means the Greeks went to war just because they could. James disagreed with Greek history books because their only motives were ride, gold, women, enslaved people, and excitement.  

Additionally, he called those wars Piratical, typical of a pirate, with their primary purpose of stealing things. My question is, what the fun of was killing people for something meaningless? We should reach a point where war will be better managed and peaceful. The next part discusses the paradoxical, self-contradictory between having the union expunged from history and transitioning to peace or people willing to go to another civil war with similar possessions.       

 

            When William James started talking about world peace, I agreed. Reading his essay reminded me of Jimmy Carter’s moral equivalent of freedom. Regarding peace in the world, we all must agree to disagree on different ideas to maintain peace. As James mentioned, war and peace should mean the same thing. I agree with this statement because both words connect. Later on, he talks about war as the romance of history. As I stated in class, this was new to me. I have not heard this analogy before. However, learning more from James Williams’s perspective on the word makes sense as to why it should be compared. For example, in the essay, William James says, “But inordinate ambitions are the soul of every patriotism, and the possibility of violent death the soul of all romance.” I do disagree with “the possibility of violent death the soul of all romance” because it sounds like an extremist ideal that many humans do not believe in. 

            Next, he talks about his militarist authors taking a mystical view of their subject. They also regarded war as a biological or sociological necessity. I found this interesting because I did not feel like war is biological. I always thought war was more of a learned trait rather than biological. Not everyone is made for war or has a war mentality early on.   

            To continue, James explains that militaristic authors believe war must come no matter the time or reason. It just happens at a whim sometimes. He also explains how war is a human obligation. I also cannot entirely agree with this statement because it does not sound moral that humans are born to fight. On the contrary, others think of war in a more complex way. For example, in “Philosophie des Krieges,” by S. R. Steinmetz, he mentions war as an “ordeal instituted by God” (A William James Source Page). I also found it interesting how religion is tied to war.   

            In the end, William James states that he was a pacifist. Furthermore, towards the end, he talks about his vision of the moral equivalent of war. He believes in a reign of peace and the gradual advent of social equilibrium. He is not expecting 100% equality but better throughout the different generations. He also expresses how war has become impossible because of its monstrosity. This means war has gotten out of control and is nearly impossible to stop through future generations. It is only going to get worse. He also expresses that if war were to happen, it would be because of definite motives, subject prudential checks, and reasonable criticism. Bringing up my past point, wars like how the Greeks did would not happen because many of their wars were useless due to a lack of motive. He hopes that war will be formally outlawed. As well as William James believes in an anti-militaristic party. I agree with William James when he says peace will not be permanent. Humans cannot agree 100% on any topic. However, William James was not anti-military; he still believed in old army discipline. He proposes the idea of our modern Peace Corps. We should be able to volunteer, see the world, and have discipline to gain a different view of life. As well as make men better humans after participating. The Peace Corps he is proposing will still cling to the hardihood to continue the manliness of the army.  

            Additionally, he believed they would come back with healthier sympathies and sober ideas. He also reminds us that a peaceful economy cannot be a pleasure economy. Continuing, He expresses that the war party is right in affirming martial values that are now part of good human nature.   

            Then, he talks about how much men are proud of belonging to a conquered nation. Although, he believes some men feel pride and shame. “Why should they not blush with indignant shame if the community that owns them is vile in any way whatsoever.” I cited this quote because I agree with James. After all, war can bring shame to people when they feel like they are doing an immoral thing to innocent people. He agrees with the author H. G. Wells because he believes, “In many ways,” he says, “military organization is the most peaceful of activities.” As I stated in the earlier paragraph, it can help shape men when drilled and trained for better.