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.   

Final report blogpost, due December 10

The blogpost is simply to be an elaboration of your final presentation, with links etc. to be embedded in the text in lieu of footnotes or bibliography (instructions on how to do links etc. are in the right sidebar and below: ("How to add links, embed videos etc."). There's no set length-requirement, just say what you think will suitably complement what you've already told us. 

To post, after you've opened your author invitation, click on "New Post" in the upper right.

Post an early draft if you'd like feedback prior to Dec. 10.

==

How to add links, embed videos etc.
Videos: in Blogger, after clicking on "New Post"-- 1. Copy the URL of the video you want to share. 2. Click on "More options" on the far right of the toolbar above, then Insert Video icon (3d from left) 3. Select YouTube 5. Select Search 6. Paste the URL & Select it

 == To insert links: 1. Highlight a word or phrase in your text 2. Click on the link icon 3. Paste the URL address of the site or passage you want to link to 

== 

To insert graphics, either just copy-&-paste... OR, click on the "insert image" icon (to the right of the link icon, to the left of the "insert video" icon) and select the appropriate option 

== 

To embed Google Books pages: 1. Find the book you want to embed. 2. Select Preview 3. Select (click on) the page you want to embed. 4. Click More Actions (the three vertical dots in the upper right) 5. Select Embed (unless you just want to link the page) 6. Copy the code 7. In edit mode on blogger, select the pen icon in the upper left and click on HTML view 8. Paste the code 

== 

Familiarize yourself with the edit icons in the drop-down menu (link, insert image, insert video, etc.) Always make sure, after you Publish, that the formatting is correct on the blogsite. If not, click More options (the three horizontal dots in the upper right) and then Clear Formatting on the far right (the T with a diagonal slash).

Exam 2 Audio Review

 Audio review for the exam on Tuesday DEC 5 is here...

"Freedom in Education: A Philosophical Critique of Current Ed. Policies"

Fall '23 MTSUApplied Philosophy Lyceum with Dr. Eric T. Weber, now on YouTube

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mDhuxrOJpwU&si=70Yam8XLBc90qMKs

Chapter 41&42 of Fantasyland

 Fantasy Land Ch. 41 & 42 

Madelyn Thurston 

Intro to Philosophy: Section 11 

 

Science  

In today's society, there exists a controversial fantasy with both topics. One involving the depths of knowledge and facts, and the other, with power and protection. Kurt Andersen, the author of Fantasy Land, and many others, talks about his experiences with vaccines during major pandemics, and the stigmatism around science recently. He also goes into a discussion on the fantasies people have about gun rights and shares some personal experiences. Within the past few years, we have seen both subjects circling, whether that be in media or just in everyday conversation.  

Are GMO’s bad for you? Scientists, multiple scientists, have done extensive research to disprove this claim, but there is still a huge stigmatism around the subject. Andersen, in the book Fantasy Land, exclaims, “of the scientists in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 88 percent think it's safe to eat GMO foods. This is almost exactly the same percentage of those scientists who say climate change is real and man-made.” It is silly to back the science of professionals on one topic, but not another. In chapter 41, Andersen not only discusses GMOs, but it leads him to the arguments of vaccines. He mentions how he grew up during the polio outbreak and the flu epidemic, and how it took the lives of many people. In the early 1950’s, the first successful vaccine was created by US physician Jonas Salk. By 1957, cases had dropped by 52,400 and were down to just below 200 in 1961. But of course, people had their concerns. Rumors of it causing autism, Alzheimer's, or diabetes went around. Anderson mentions one doctor who studied 10 children that already showed signs of autistic behaviors before being vaccinated for certain things, and he took that and ran with it. None of his studies could be replicated, and countless other studies continued to prove his wrong. That is a huge ethical problem. A demand for certain preservatives to be taken out of drugs came about. It happened, and surprisingly enough... nothing changed. Autism diagnoses were still on the rise. The question was raised, “should vaccines continue to be required in schools?” What do you think?  

Guns 

In the past 11 months alone, more than 500 shootings have occurred in the U.S. At least one of them happening in Nashville, remarkably close to home. And for those of you who are not aware, after the shooting took children's lives, Colorado Representative, Lauren Boebert promoted a tee-shirt that read "Since we’re redefining everything, this is a cordless hole puncher.” To make fun of those who identify themselves differently, because of who the shooter was. Andersen, in chapter 42 of Fantasy Land, mentions the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that happened in 2012, where 20 first graders were murdered. The shooter obtained his weapons from his mom’s legally purchased stockpile that she had because she had a “survivalist philosophy.” One of those guns included a rifle, which he killed her with. And he used a semi-automatic to murder the teachers and children. But even after, people continued to fantasize and try to blame alternative realities. Andersen mentions Alex Jones, who said that it was all fake and that the parents were faking their grieving on TV. The father of one of the kids tried to debunk the theories, and a pro-gun fantasists threatened to kill the guy.   

 Why do people let their fantasies get in the way of their moral senses? According to Andersen, “The experts say that most mass shooting killers are not psychotics or paranoid schizophrenics in the throes of clinical delusion: rather, they're citizens of Fantasyland, unhappy people with flaws and failures they blame on others, the system, the elitists, the world.”  Even though one the main desire for guns is self-defense, the chances of needing one in a situation like that are very unlikely. About 1 in 6 thousand Americans either display a gun or fires one in a form of self-defense during a robbery or assault. And only one person in the 6 million interviewed in 10 years used a gun in self-defense against sexual assault. So why are they being so heavily defended? When the founders wrote the constitution, they envisioned a very small permanent national military. If Americans needed to fight wars, the states would assemble their militias. When the constitution was written, the supreme court would not produce what the 2nd amendment really meant because all of the amendments were meant to change with time according to circumstances.  So as time went on it kept changing. In the 1970’s, a new political movement was born opposed to any firearms regulation. But there were 2 requirements. You had to pass an FBI background check, and certain semiautomatic guns and the mags that held more than 10 rounds were banned. The NRA kind of threw a fit about this and wrote a letter to fundraise and it was signed by Wayne LaPierre. In protest of this letter, President George H. W. Bush resigned from the NRA. Then, the anti-gun-regulation activist, Timothy McVeigh, blew up the Oklahoma City federal building. LaPierre and the gun right advocates did not stop there. They strived for the Supreme Court to ratify their new movement. In the 1990s, Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative appointed by Nixon, complained after he retired that the 2nd amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud- I repeat the word fraud- on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”  In cases in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court finally agreed to decide the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. In both cases, five justices went with the new reading. Now our constitution does indeed guarantee each one of us the right to own firearms. LaPierre says that FBI background checks “are just the first step in their long march to destroying our Second Amendment- protected rights.”  The NRA made sure that current federal law requires that the record of every gun buyer who goes through a background check be destroyed. Gregory Orr, a poet who inspired Andersen, wrote after he accidently killed his brother while hunting, “To hunt... To fire a gun is to have your imagination tangled up with fantasies of power.”