Controversial
nature of war
Barlas
F. Esin - Unsystematic
Ideas
Humans,
since the beginning of history, have been
in constant battle with one another. Many
people assert that war is important for
the advancement of humankind. Many others,
however, insist that we need to avoid war
to encourage the survival of humankind.
The ethical nature of war, therefore, is
highly controversial. As conscious people,
we should at least try to understand these
opposing perspectives, so that we can determine
the value of war for ourselves.
The pro-war supporters who emphasize the
necessity of war are called realists.
Realism explains the cause of war through
people’s biological dispositions and cultural
uprisings. The classical realists, for example,
would assert that war is an unavoidable
part of an anarchical world system, where
states need to use aggression to form long-lasting
peace.
The modern realists, in comparison, point
out the need for a state to maximize its
potential self-interest. They consider the
international arena to be lawless because
the will to gain power dominates ethical
principles. Therefore, the modern realists
underline power and security issues as a
basis of war. They assert that a state could
resort to war so long as it makes sense
in terms of national self-interest.
The realists also believe that once war
begins, a state may do whatever it can to
win.
In contrast, the anti-war supporters who
criticize the ethical nature of war are
called pacifists. “Pacifism” rejects war
in favor of peace by claiming that there
are no moral grounds to justify resorting
to war.
Denis Diderot, for instance, points out
that war is a raging and brutal sickness
of the body of politics. The existentialist
philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre claims that
war is incompatible with the complete freedom
of human will.
Pacifism, however, doesn’t reject war on
absolute ethical grounds by referring to
religious doctrines. It rather provides
pragmatic justifications for opposing war,
such as arguing that we can never know if
war would lead to a long-lasting peace or
better advancement of humankind. Pacifism
seeks to explain the cause of war not through
people’s biology or culture, but through
the faculty of reason that resides in all
people.
One thing needs clarification at this point:
Pacifism doesn’t renounce all forms of violence,
such as the violence caused while protecting
oneself from a direct external threat. Rather,
pacifism renounces killing - particularly
mass killing - for political reasons.
Instead of emphasizing state self-interest
as a basis of war, the pacifists would seek
to minimize the inevitable outcomes of wartime
experience: high death rates, psychological
trauma, economic turbulence, circles of
mistrust and so on. Also, since pacifism
encourages a neutral attitude, it doesn’t
need to prove that war is unnecessary. Pacifism
places the burden of proof for the necessity
of war on those who support it.
Personally, I feel more sympathetic toward
pacifism regarding a possible attack on
Iraq. Not that I wouldn’t enjoy seeing a
heartless tyrant like Saddam Hussein sent
to hell and peace restored within Iraq,
but I feel that states need to exhaust all
possible alternatives for maintaining peace
and tranquility before resorting to war.
I’m skeptical that the outcomes of war would
actually engender greater benefits than
the outcomes of alternative measures.
“Man,” Aristotle once said, “is a political
animal.” And, like my father says, politics
is an illogical endeavor. After all, we
see that both realism and pacifism have
solid arguments against each other, and
neither view is visibly better.
Because logic can operate either way in
this case, I will not uphold one perspective
on war over the other. I simply share my
point of view. The decision ultimately belongs
to you - just make up your mind through
a conscious introspection!
Barlas Esin is a jounalism major and philosophy
minor at Cal State Long Beach. He can be
contacted at besin@csulb.edu.
|
