Moral Equivalent of War - Essay Example

Moral Equivalent of War William James in his speech in 1906 asserted that the world is guided by militarist virtues which ensure collectivity, discipline and commitment and that “war welds men into cohesive states” (Par. 17). He also acknowledges that the modern world is characterized by toil and pain due to injustices caused by nature. Some men live luxuriously with ease while others have to work hard in order to get out of poverty hence suffer inferiority. By joining the military, men feel a sense of pride and dignity since their services are essential to the state. The army life involves giving up self-interest for the good of the group hence peaceful coexistence and therefore according to James, war must have its way unless a moral equivalent is found which can discipline the whole community and make them feel valued. This would involve conscription of the whole youth population to form an army against nature which is the only enemy of justice and peace. By performing such duties as; dishwashing, road building, coal and iron mining, widow washing, and tunnel making among other duties, the youth would be moulded into responsible men with desirable virtues such as which would replace military virtues hence a moral equivalent of war (Par 25-26). The need for a moral equivalent of war is due to the fact that war is irrational. The ancient communities fought only for the sake of glory and to steal women and other possessions. These military ideals are passed on from generation to generation but in modern times they are restricted for war is only fought when necessary. Instead, nations seek peaceful negotiations and only fight when a compromise cannot be reached. However, for James it is difficult to bring peace-party and war-party together because of fear of disappearance of military action which is disciplinary. Nations live in fear hence are always preparing for war so for the military ‘peace’ and ‘war’ are synonymous with the latter being just a “verification of mastery gained during the peace period” and the absence of war would lead to degeneration of life (Par 8). Militarism is also viewed as a means by which men gain and retain their hardihood and since war is discouraged, the anti-militarists argue that men require new hardihoods equivalent to those instilled by militants. These include; fearlessness, giving up self-interest, and obeying commands (par 23). James believes that new energies and hardihoods can be acquired by altering public opinion just like militarist hardihoods are energized by fear. Men would feel obliged to act for the common good of all hence feel proud of themselves and this would be the equivalent of war. The “moral equivalent of war” concept has been used in various situations by the nation to achieve its objectives especially those who practice socialism. Ownership of private property is discouraged so as to ensure equality for all members of the society. They all work together for the common good of all community members and give up self-interest. However, this concept is highly criticized by liberalists who believe men should be free to do what they ought to do without influence. Liberalists like Samuel Gregg would thus criticize William James’s idea that men should be conscripted into an army against nature so as to acquire martial virtues necessary for survival and which would act as “moral equivalent of war”. For Gregg, free choice should not be suppressed for the sake of economic equality (9). As such, the state does not need to interfere with the liberty of individuals as they can reason and choose what is best in achieving their ends. Rather, the state should provide assistance to the community to enable them to realize integral liberty. He also argues that men can gain different virtues in many ways and use them for the common good of the community (Gregg 73). William James advocates for a state controlled economy or socialism type of government. By working under government control, the government is able to direct people into achieving its objectives and the individuals feel that their work is valuable when they work as civil servants. They would also feel proud by working for the state just like soldiers feel proud by being owned by the army (James, par 27).The civil servants would be obliged to give up their self-interest for the good of all the community and whatever gained is shared by all. However, Gregg would argue that being under control of the state is denying individuals their integral liberty and that “the institutions that civilize human beings limit free choices of autonomous human beings” (Gregg 73). He thus advocates for a free market economy where individuals pursue self-interests without state control. He argues that the relationship between individuals is guided by contracts which are binding and therefore guide human action. Instead of state controlling individuals so as to ensure community discipline, laws would act as educator and regulator of negative human actions thus ensuring self-discipline necessary for sustaining self-government (Gregg 55). He further argues that free markets discourage irrationalities such as racism and makes free choice possible and also places limitations on the state to avoid oppression. The role of the state should only be to provide a condusive environment to ensure individuals achieve their interests for the common good of the community. For example, by ensuring there is peace. The constitution is an integral part in ensuring political community common good. The constitution stipulates the duties and responsibilities of state organs and the amount of authority possessed by each organ (Gregg 73). It is people driven and therefore limits the authority of the state or influence of the state on its citizens hence ensuring liberty. The judiciary would ensure that even though individuals are pursuing self-interest, disciplinary action is taken for those who infringe on others rights hence people do not require to gain martial virtues for a community to be disciplined as indicated by William. The constitution would also unite the people as it expresses public opinion hence evens out injustices in society and as such, men do not need to be conscripted into an army against nature. Constitutional provisions ensure commitment by all members hence men do not have to be coerced to work for the state in order to feel a sense of belonging and pride in their work (Gregg 79). Gregg also argues that individuals have many preferences and different ways of achieving them and as such “common good does not require uniformity” (Gregg 73). This is quite contrary to what William thought of as a moral equivalent of war. For him, all human beings need to acquire certain martial virtues which he believes are absolute and permanent human goods (James, Par 24). By acquiring these virtues, men get similar feelings of pride and shame and these can be acquired in other aspects of the country through education. Gregg believes that the state should help people to make choices among those preferences and let them achieve them through their own means and not forcing them to do so. Gregg in his argument against using “moral equivalent of war” argument would differ with McClay in some respects. First, Gregg’s argument is that a free market economy is required for integral liberty to be achieved. McClay on the other hand, criticizes James argument in that a nation is disorganized and has separate units hence making it difficult to act in agreement or to pursue a common purpose (McClay, 139). For McClay, only a crisis that presents itself as a moral equivalent of war would require citizens to act towards a common goal otherwise the nation works towards different objectives. The crisis may be; poverty, drug use, oil spills or any other crisis that requires concerted efforts of all citizens. He also argues that the efforts build up to solve one form of crisis cannot be used to solve a different crisis hence William James idea of acquiring martial virtues to solve all injustices created by nature may not be applicable. McClay also refutes the idea of conscription of the community so as to attain discipline not on the ground that it limits individual freedom of choice as argued by Gregg, but in that none of the efforts made by the government to form a universal national service such as formation of Americorps and peace corps has been effective in finding a national purpose or disciplining a whole community (McClay, 141). He also argues on the difficulty of ensuring citizens put aside their self-interests on behalf of the common good of the community. On the contrary, Gregg advocates for pursuance of self-interest as long as it would lead to the common good of the community especially through the use of contracts or constitution in a free market to guide human action. McClay also criticizes James’s understanding of war especially in its role in promoting virtues of hardihood. He argues that war is fought for a reason and not for wars sake and that the hardihood are just by-products. Furthermore, human virtues are not transferable from one situation to another; each situation requires different virtues and not necessarily those instilled by war or its equivalent (McClay, 142). Whereas Gregg supports political community which seeks to further common good, McClay argues that such a community cannot exist since the nation is too large and that it is against the constitution. For him, the constitution is against harmony but encourages conflict in order to combat individualism and preserve liberty (144). References Gregg, Samuel. On Ordered Liberty: A Treatise on the Free Society. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2003. James, William. “The Moral Equivalent of War.” 4 October, 2011. http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm McClay, Wilfred. “The Moral Equivalent of War.” National Affairs. 5 October, 2011. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20100918-McClay-pdf(1).pdf(application/pdf Object). Read More