Philosophy of war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Philosophy of war examines war beyond the typical questions of weaponry and strategy, inquiring into the meaning and etiology of war, what war means for humanity and human nature as well as the ethics of war. Certain portions of the philosophy of war overlap with Philosophy of history, Political Philosophy and Philosophy of law.
Contents |
[edit] Great works in the Philosophy of war
Perhaps the greatest and most influential work in the philosophy of war is On War by Carl von Clausewitz. It combines observations on strategy with questions about human nature and the purpose of war. Clausewitz especially examines the teleology of war: whether war is a means to an end outside itself or whether it can be an end in itself. He concludes that the latter cannot be so, and that war is "politics by different means"; i.e. that war must not exist only for its own sake but must serve some purpose for the state.
Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace contains frequent philosophical digressions on the philosophy of war (and broader metaphysical assertions derived from Christianity and from Tolstoy's observations of the Napoleonic Wars), and was very influential on later thought about war, especially ideas of nonviolent resistance. Tolstoy's Christian philosophy of war (especially his essays "A Letter to a Hindu" and "The Kingdom of God is Within You") was a direct influence on Gandhi's Hinduism-based non-violent resistance philosophy.
Niccolò Machiavelli wrote a book titled The Art of War, however its focus is mostly on weaponry and strategy instead of philosophy. However, sections of his masterpiece The Prince discuss war from a philosophical point of view.
[edit] Traditions of thought
Since the philosophy of war is usually treated as a subset of another branch of philosophy (such as political philosophy or the philosophy of law) it would be difficult to define any clear schools of thought in the same sense that, e.g., Existentialism or Objectivism can be clearly distinguished. According to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Carl von Clausewitz is "the only (so-called) philosopher of war", in that, he is the only (major) philosophical writer who develops a philosophical system focusing exclusively on war. However, traditions of thought on war have become clearly defined enough that some writers have been able to distinguish between broad schools of thought under which certain philosophers can be categorized. Below are two prominent examples.
[edit] Teleological categories
According to Anatol Rapoport's introduction to his edition of the J. J. Graham translation of Clausewitz's On War, there are three main traditions of thought in the philosophy of war: the cataclysmic, the eschatological, and the political. (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 13) He divides these, for the most part, according to teleology, that is, according to what each school of thought thinks is the end, goal, or purpose of war. These are, of course, not the only possible philosophies of war, but only three of the most common. As Rapoport says,
-
- To put it metaphorically, in political philosophy war is compared to a game of strategy (like chess); in eschatological philosophy, to a mission or the dénouement of a drama; in cataclysmic philosophy, to a fire or an epidemic.
-
- These do not, of course, exhaust the views of war prevailing at different times and at different places. For example, war has at times been viewed as a pastime or an adventure, as the only proper occupation for a nobleman, as an affair of honor (for example, the days of chivalry), as a ceremony (e.g. among the Aztecs), as an outlet of aggressive instincts or a manifestation of a "death wish", as nature's way of ensuring the survival of the fittest, as an absurdity (e.g. among Eskimos), as a tenacious custom, destined to die out like slavery, and as a crime. (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 17)
- The Cataclysmic school of thought, which was espoused by Leo Tolstoy in his epic novel War and Peace, sees war as a bane on humanity--whether avoidable or inevitable--which serves little purpose outside of causing destruction and suffering, and which may cause drastic change to society, but not in any teleological sense. Tolstoy's view may be placed under the subcategory of global cataclysmic philosophy of war. Another subcategory of the cataclysmic school of thought is the ethnocentric cataclysmic, in which this view is focused specifically on the plight of a specific ethnicity or nation, for example the view in Judaism of war as a punishment from God on the Israelites in certain books of the Tenakh (Old Testament). As the Tenakh (in certain books) sees war as an ineluctable act of God, so Tolstoy especially emphasizes war as something that befalls man and is in no way under the influence of man's "free will", but is instead the result of irresistible global forces. (On War, Rapoport's introduction 16)
- The Eschatological school of thought sees all wars (or all major wars) as leading to some goal, and asserts that some final conflict will someday resolve the path followed by all wars and result in a massive upheaval of society and a subsequent new society free from war (in varying theories the resulting society may be either a utopia or a dystopia). There are two subsets of this view: the Messianic and the Global theory. The Marxist concept of a communist world ruled by the proletariat after a final worldwide revolution is an example of the global theory, and the Christian concept of an Armageddon war which will usher in the second coming of Christ and the final defeat of Satan is an example of a theory that could fall under Global or Messianic. (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 15) The messianic eschatological philosophy is derived from the Jewish-Christian concept of a Messiah, and sees wars as culminating in unification of humanity under a single faith or a single ruler. Crusades, Jihads, the Nazi concept of a Master Race and the 19th century American concept of Manifest Destiny may also fall under this heading. (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 15) (See main articles for more information: Christian eschatology, Jewish eschatology)
- The Political school of thought, of which Clausewitz was a proponent, sees war as a tool of the state. On page 13 Rapoport says,
-
- Clausewitz views war as a rational instrument of national policy. The three words "rational", "instrument" and "national" are the key concepts of his paradigm. In this view, the decision to wage war "ought" to be rational, in the sense that it ought to be based on estimated costs and gains of war. Next, war "ought" to be instrumental, in the sense that it ought to be waged in order to achieve some goal, never for its own sake; and also in the sense that strategy and tactics ought to be directed towards just one end, namely towards victory. Finally, war "ought" to be national, in the sense that its objective should be to advance the interests of a national state and that the entire effort of the nation ought to be mobilized in the service of the military objective.
- He later characterizes the philosophy behind the Vietnam War and other Cold War conflicts as "Neo-Clausewitzian". Rapoport also includes Machiavelli as an early example of the political philosophy of war (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 13). Decades after his essay, the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War begun by the United States under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 have often been justified under the doctrine of preemption, a political motivation stating that the United States must use war to prevent further attacks such as the September 11, 2001 attacks.
[edit] Ethical categories
Another possible system for categorizing different schools of thought on war can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see external links, below), based on ethics. The SEP describes three major divisions in the ethics of war: the Realist, the Pacifist, and the Just War Theory. In a nutshell:
- Realists will typically hold that systems of morals and ethics which guide individuals within societies cannot realistically be applied to societies as a whole to govern the way they, qua societies, interact with other societies. Hence, a state's purposes in war is simply to preserve its national interest. This kind of thinking is similar to Machiavelli's philosophy, and Thucydides and Hobbes may also fall under this category.
- Pacifists, however, maintain that a moral evaluation of war is possible, and that war is always found to be immoral. Gandhi and Tolstoy were both famous advocates of pacifistic nonviolent resistance methods instead of war.
- Just War Theory, along with pacifism, holds that morals do apply to war. However, unlike pacifism, according to Just War Theory it is possible for a war to be morally justified. The concept of a morally justified war underlies much of the concept International Law, such as the Geneva Conventions. Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, and Hugo Grotius are among the philosophers who have espoused some form of a just war philosophy.
[edit] References
- Clausewitz, Carl von, On War. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1968. J. J. Graham translation, 1908. Anatol Rapoport, editor. Introduction and notes (c) Anatol Rapoport, 1968.
[edit] Additional Reading
- Chanakya, Arthashastra [1], especially Book X "Relating to War" (Discusses war along with philosophical/religious observations about sacrifice derived from Vedic scripture)
- Heindel, Max, The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers - Volume II (The Philosophy of War, World War I reference, ed. 1918), ISBN 0-911274-90-1 (Describing a philosophy of war from the point of view of Rosicrucian beliefs)
- Mosely, Alexander, A Philosophy of War, from Lew Rockwell's website. (Describes a philosophy of war which rejects determinism, and espouses the role of man's free will in waging war)
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Philosophy of war page at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Philosophy of war page at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- A reading list for great works in the philosophy of war
- Readings about Christian nonresistance philosophy of war
