War might be bad, but...
Are we just going to turn a blind eye to man’s inhumanity to man?
Erasmus condemned war. But when war is declared, ethics gets turned on his head. Killing people, looting and pillaging, deception and (for the especially deranged) suicide missions suddenly become quite acceptable. Thus, we might conclude that war is very bad.
As the book notes, recent wars have been conducted to free people from the spectre of genocide and fanatical regimes. World War II was fought to defeat the Nazis and their odious philosophy and Japanese militarism.
But if we stopped fighting wars to remove such regimes, then we are, in effect, leaving dictators to murder as many people as they like.
Whether war is acceptable depends on the reason for its declaration and its aftermath. World War I was precipitated by an assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria which then triggered the various alliances among the European powers. The penalties imposed on Germany at the end of the war seem to have contributed to Hitler’s rise. Ultimately, World War I was bad from start to finish and into its aftermath. World War II was started when the Germans invaded Poland in the latest in a series of land grabs. This ended up being an ideological war which saw some of the worst atrocities in human history. But the aftermath was better: probably the longest stretch of peace in Europe in centuries; Germany and Japan became an economic powers.
Perhaps there’s an answer of a sort: improve the lot of people economically (which is an idea Adam Smith had as well). But life’s too complicated and humanity too diverse. Economic activity leads to acquisitiveness, which can then lead to conflict over resources. It would seem that we can never really win.
As the book notes, recent wars have been conducted to free people from the spectre of genocide and fanatical regimes. World War II was fought to defeat the Nazis and their odious philosophy and Japanese militarism.
But if we stopped fighting wars to remove such regimes, then we are, in effect, leaving dictators to murder as many people as they like.
Whether war is acceptable depends on the reason for its declaration and its aftermath. World War I was precipitated by an assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria which then triggered the various alliances among the European powers. The penalties imposed on Germany at the end of the war seem to have contributed to Hitler’s rise. Ultimately, World War I was bad from start to finish and into its aftermath. World War II was started when the Germans invaded Poland in the latest in a series of land grabs. This ended up being an ideological war which saw some of the worst atrocities in human history. But the aftermath was better: probably the longest stretch of peace in Europe in centuries; Germany and Japan became an economic powers.
Perhaps there’s an answer of a sort: improve the lot of people economically (which is an idea Adam Smith had as well). But life’s too complicated and humanity too diverse. Economic activity leads to acquisitiveness, which can then lead to conflict over resources. It would seem that we can never really win.
Tomorrow, Tony Blair and his justification for going along on Ayatollah Dubya’s personal crusade.
Comments