Summary Of The Moral Equivalent Of War By William James

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

Many people tend to think war is a part of life that mankind will never be able to rid itself of. This comes from the assumption that war is one of the basic needs of mankind. However, Margaret Mead does not make this assumption. In fact, she denies its credibility in her essay “Warfare is Only an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity.” In this essay, Margaret Mead combines a great deal of logos and ethos with limited pathos to support her pacifist claim that warfare is merely an invention of man, and not a need found in the very nature of man. While Mead’s claim does not agree with the most common beliefs about warfare, its mixture of logos and ethos is as strong as the bricks and mortar of a

Hedges argues that war is both a deadly addiction—a drug that offers an unmatchable intoxication, the thrill of being released from the moral strictures of everyday life—and a unifying force that provides a sense of meaning, purpose, and self-sacrifice that can wash away life's trivial concerns. But the meaningfulness of combat, Hedges suggests, depends upon the myth of war. In reality, no matter what grand cause it is supposed to support, war is simply the basest form of aggression: "organized murder." Once war begins, the moral universe collapses and every manner of atrocity can be justified in the eyes of those who wage it, because the cause is just, the enemy is inhuman, and only war can restore balance to the world. Hedges reveals the

First providing evidence that today’s advances enable us to survive without fighting for land, or food making war superfluous. He blames greed of power, and egos for war, using evidence from the past to confirm his theory. The examples of Alexander, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne Napoleon, and Hitler, all claiming a desire for peace. All pursuing their selfish ambition, thus proving his claim that greed of power and egos are responsible for war. Furthermore, claiming the power of modern weapons eliminates the possibility of a benefit from war. Using the convincing evidence of our annihilation to substantiate this claim, creating the urgency to resolve conflicts peacefully. Asking that our actions accurately match our speech. He argues the hypocrisy proving that claims for peace are made while building our arsenals and armies. He uses the example of heads of state coming to peace negotiations with sheathed swords. “We must pursue peaceful end through peaceful means.” (King, 1967) Again using history as evidence of future behavior, stating when he sees history repeating itself he becomes skeptical. He petitions us to revolutionize, before the destruction of the planet and extinction of the humane race, assuming capability of reform.

'In war some sorts of restraint, both on what we can legitimately fight for (jus ad bellum) and on how we may legitimately fight (jus in bello), are morally required'.1 However, recent theorists also add the responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus post bellum) to the main two categories of just war theory. From Christian perspective the function of the JWT was simply an excuse of making war morally and religiously possible writes Michael Walzer. He also agrees with its defendants, that it made war possible in a world where war was, sometimes, necessary. JWT is therefore to be used as a sort of moral rule-book from which legitimate

There are certain things that at their core have not changed throughout time. Adult’s antagonism towards teens, taxes, Swedes and socialism, Canadians dominance in hockey, and in Victor Davis Hanson’s opinion, war. Through a collection of his essays, Hanson gives readers compelling arguments that war is intrinsic to the human condition and believes that it is worth examining to learn from. He analyzes several wars such as the Peloponnesian War to the American Civil War to the current struggle in Iraq, and sees continuities within them all to convince us of his argument that war is an essential aspect of humanity. Hanson makes valid points and assertions to the reader that war is the ‘father of us all’, with some foibles

The Christian “just-war’ doctrine originally was conceived by Saint Augustine and later was updated by Saint Thomas Aquinas and other schools of thought. The just-war doctrine provided a middle ground between the pacifist views of the early church and the unchecked use of force in God’s name, such as the Crusades. St. Augustine personally did not approve of war, however, claimed that God had given people the power to do battle for a good reason. He argued that Christians should not be ashamed to go to war to protect their peace and punish those who they perceived as evil. He went so far as to say that the inaction or peacefulness while being faced with wickedness that could be stopped with violence would actually be a sin since self-defense

In addition to being a pioneer in his field, James applied his knowledge in psychology to address issues outside of psychology ranging from religion to education. The most famous example of such works is his speech The moral Equivalent of War, in which he acknowledged both the rising popularity of militarism in Europe and the pacifist movement, and sought to find how to sustain unity and civic virtue in the absence of war. Although James was able to effectively persuade individuals of both sides by recognizing each side’s merit, to many it remains a mystery as to why the piece is so widely quoted, but not nearly as popular in full text. I believe this phenomena is because James fails to leave any message with the audience other than that there is a possible solution to the issue. By failing to even bring up one possible solution, the audience is left feeling overwhelmed with the issue, with no clear direction to

We all have our own views regarding the meaning of war, but there is one that nobody can deny, although honourable, war is purely nothing but futile suffering and an everlasting road of pain. Yet from all these past struggles, we may ask ourselves why is war still present in our society today?

His argument suggests that individuals go to war for reasons other than fear. However, those reasons must be replaced with something less likely to have the potential of evoking violence. Furthermore, James poses a solution that satisfies

Secondly, to secure common life and culture from being threatened, just war theory has historically

Lewis indicates that war is part of human existence, thus, it is included in the annals of human history though it is evidence of falling human nature. Evidently, the author states that even with improvement in sophisticated weapons of war such as nuclear weapons, it is evident that humans are surrounded with uncertainties. Notwithstanding, the writer accentuates that the activities in fighting do not add new dynamics to life but reflects on the negative side of life. Imperatively, there is a reflection on the essence of war as whether it is immoral, a moral obligation or morally neutral (Lewis, 1939). However, this can be answered by focusing on what is considered evil or appropriate in accordance to tenets of the population. In the case of war, nothing can be done since people seldom focus on the benefits of others in the struggle. On a contradictory note, Lewis

Reading from the three essays: “from The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, “from The Prince” by Niccola Machiavelli, and “Warfare: An Invention” by Margaret Mead, all have same but different perspectives. The three readings all revolve around war, violence and aggression. Reading these three essays can give a different perspective on warfare. The ways of the three components in these readings, war, violence and aggression and the way the human body works as to how people work, is amazing. The authors show war, violence and aggression through these pieces to compare and contrast their ideas and moral of warfare.

Furthermore, William James in his essay admits that," I devoutly believe in the reign of peace and in the gradual advent of some sort of a socialist equilibrium. The fatalistic view of the war-function is to me nonsense...I look forward to a future when acts of war shall be formally outlawed as between

One may construe his courage as recklessness, especially in the sense that he may put others’ lives at risk for his own personal thrill (scenes such as the bomb-defusing and the final mission exhibit support this opinion). If James’ bravery frightens members of his squad, the team could actually work in the opposite direction of victory. This observation does not help to credit James’ nobility; since it may appear the man only participates in acts of war for personal satisfaction, one may deem James’ patriot complex disloyal. Also, James does not seem to possess the ability to function efficiently when working with others. Not only do his professional skills oppose the appropriate dexterities of Sanborn and Eldridge, but also the men’s personalities cannot exist together without conflict (as shown through the drinking and fighting scenes). These impressions of James characterize him as anything but heroic, yet the man does in fact demonstrate acts of