War and Intervention - By Ed Hobson

War and Intervention

Having written on this subject a few months ago in my official capacity as a student, I was faced with the issue of whether or not both sides of a conflict could have a just cause. I found that to wage a war, at least in a (primarily) civilian controlled democracy, popular consent is required. In that case, a just cause is a pre-requisite for any military engagement, whatever the true motives for military action may be. In the case of a military controlled dictatorship, this is much easier, but the governing and by that extent, war-making class of the common or garden democracy must convince a sufficient amount of the people with promises that the adventure will be worth the price in blood and treasure. It will spread civilisation to far flung corners of the globe, free an oppressed populace, enrich the homeland, or counter an emerging and virulent threat to the sovereignty of the nation.

This means these motivations are often steeped in a confounding cultural relativism. Our ethics justified the expansion of the Empire because we believed we had a duty to spread “civilisation” and get very rich doing it. Simply put, we were quite racist. The wholesale slaughter of the battlefield bodes ill for anyone who believes in the sanctity of all human life, as the right to life of one is balanced on the scales against the life of another from the other side of a conflict.

As we believe that democracy is, fundamentally a good thing, we would say, for example, the Syrian rebels have a more just cause than the dictator and popularly titled Butcher of Damascus, Bashar Al-Assad. The problem with intervention though, is sovereignty; where does sovereignty stop? Every nation has the right to continue its existence unmolested by outside forces, but surely we don’t want to allow suffering to happen in countries like Syria. Do we?

Whenever we feel intervention maybe necessary, the case for or against really depends on something equally relative, our own moral authority. Helping to overthrow one unpalatable regime while standing aside while another continues to murder and pillage makes us seem, well, a little slimy; hypocritical, as well as undermining any future interventions we may undertake, however noble the intention. It does give pause for reflection about the nature of whether or not intervention is always necessary or merited, especially when this kind of issue is often presented in the very simplistic language good guys vs. bad guys, heroes vs. tyrants. The limits of what can even be achieved by intervention are painfully apparent when we think of it for what it is, and is trying to be, that is, killing with kindness; make a situation better for the people we agree with by killing those with whom we don’t. History is littered with military misadventures started by those who were surely, well meaning, but without understanding.

And this is why we so often don’t intervene. Trying to comprehend all the nuances of what’s going on in another person’s country, when the people we feel we should be supporting are often so fragmented and ineffectual, is as impossible as trying to understand what’s going on in someone else’s head. Getting right to the point, in the context of current events, it seems there’s little hope for a Libyan style outcome in Syria. In the former, the ruling power was losing its grip on a big country with an organised opposition taking shape and holding ground on the other side of the country. Syria does not conform to any part of this narrative.

I apologise for ending on such a downbeat note, especially during the time when, traditionally, combat between warring nations would cease in the interest of upholding the Olympic peace, but this is, as my dad would likely say, the Way the World is. The Syria affair will likely become a protracted struggle, and there will surely be others in the future. Especially when great powers exist and are willing to throw their weight around to secure their interests, peoples in all corners of the world are oppressed,  and the business of war remains so profitable for so many. Because war…

…war never changes.                                                                                                       

By Ed Hobson

The Philosophy Takeaway 'War' Issue 28

War as a consequence - By Tomas Moon

War as a consequence

From the moment bacteria formed and life began survival has been a struggle; predator bacteria, hostile environments and other dangers haunted the trails of bacteria and continued to do so. Those that survived and replicated effectively grew to become more complex and eventually creatures scuttled out of the sea.  This is natural selection and is the biological scalpel that sculpts our body, biological/chemical interactions and psychology.

The purpose of the story above is a reminder of the hostile environment each being faces, for there are two basic drives in evolution; to survive and to reproduce. These are the winds of the will to be, they push you along in your vessel of a body.  But all beings to some degree are pushed along by the same will and collisions erupt and boats are damaged, storms brew and waves fall as the balance of opposites find equilibrium, all of which can threaten your own evolution of staying afloat and raising a little fleet of your own.

It is in this chaos that we evolved our psychological mechanisms, to aid us in maximising our basic drive of survival and reproduction.  Mechanisms such as friendships and group living, for example drastically improve your personal survival by improving hunting success rates, defence against animals and from the elements.  These benefits were successful enough to cause an ‘other’ to be a friend and form the friendship mechanism, a psychological mechanism that bonds you to another, by doing so goes further extends than inclusive fitness theory, whereby we see our self within a genetic relative thus allowing  gene eye thinking (the closer the relative the stronger the altruism), justifying the sharing of resources and aid in raising their offspring  and relations - a somewhat selfish account of altruism.  By developing  a stronger sense of this we remove the degree of threat another person may pose, without this friendship function of our psyche all others would be threats and we would miss out on the benefits of group living.

But the door swings both ways, and other males for example can pose a threat to you or another within your group as hierarchies develop, often minimising the reproduction of a weaker or older male. Sexual jealousy for example is a mechanism to stop other males from taking your spouse and also to stop your spouse from looking for another male, and vice versa.  So an economy forms between the benefits and losses of group living. Who is worth investing in and not, who is a threat to that investment and who is an ally.  From this give and take relationship that can be coined reciprocal altruism, fighting occurs, while there is no single hypothesis that explains aggression many evolutionary problems that need to be overcome (that is what these mechanisms do is to overcome survival and reproduction problems) issues like; rapine of ones own resources, intra sexual rivalry, defence against attack and rising up the social power structure.  Aggression has many evolutionary benefits but some heavy costs if you fail.    

This economy above is of a personal scale, same to with inclusive fitness and gene eye thinking with the currency of survival and reproduction, and clearly this economy is not in recession just yet, as we all living in communities.  In social groups, group identity forms, a commonality in language, behaviours and dress that gives one face to a whole group, on many scales from a village identity to a national one, to an international and global one.  It is why we sing the same song to the national flag and why we call ourselves English or Dutch or where ever you call home.

This can be understood as type/token relations, every citizen is a type of the token country; If A is a type from token B then A is AB, if Alan is from England then Alan is English.  Whilst A is wholly A, A is only a part of B but B is a composite of all A’s and supervenes from them.  It would be mechanisms like friendship that allows B to form in the first place and as such societies are emergent from the relations of psychology, like muscle tissue from cell arrangements. 

It is interesting to wonder about identity, for in the first sense, many individuals with many different identities form one common face, which in turn plays a part in the identity of the individuals.  So whilst B is utterly dependent on the composite of many, to what extent does the face of the tribe define the individual (which will lead in to social contract theory for another day; but in brief)? For Hobbes it is the king that is the individual and all subjects are the extensions of him, thus the issue of identity here is solved in one sense, simply by removing the individuals from the equation. For Rousseau, the theory takes on a sort of Family relationship with the government, whereby we create a father figure that we obey, thus our government becomes almost the super ego (sense of morality) protecting us from the id of our strong desires of survival and reproduction making us as children and removing fully fledged adult independence. Locke says what we form is more of a value system that is based in property and prevailing beliefs like stealing is unlawful, these agreements form the nations laws and thus by allowing individuals to own property that they had a hand in attaining and by acceptances of the laws, we can at once rise above the dangers of nature and minimise the dangers of group living so make more economical sense, giving us individuality and protection at the cost creating a capitalistic self maximising culture based on financial Darwinism.

Suffice to say there is an element of homogeneous identity within a tribe membership that taps into psychological mechanisms of friendship by activating inclusive fitness perception in non-genetic relatives, we see a bit of us in others and so we can justify helping and working together, for we then help ourselves.  This is how groups can occur and social economics functions, extended inclusive fitness for maximising survival and reproduction purposes.  

If within a tribe, fighting can occur over resources or power struggles between individuals, then if two individual tribe meet, why would the tribes behave differently than if they are on the personal scale.  For if A is B and B meets C (another tribe) it is exactly the same as if two individuals from different tribes met, it could turn into an alliance or an enemy.

War is nothing but an extension of psychology, where a group united into one meets another group united into one and over resources, beliefs or power they fight for control.  The other tribe has not this localized homogeneous identity that the first tribe has, and so inclusive fitness is not extended and so, pushed by our desire, our will to be, force our improved survival at the cost of another.

  War is a natural extension of our psychology, neither good nor bad, just an enhancement of what we have evolved to survive.  The issues of war itself is not a philosophical one in itself, war has no normative value or ostensive externality in which we can declare that it is wrong or right, for it is a state of nature, be it personal, social or national, fighting occurs in all beings to some degree.

But evolutionary psychology does fail to account for a few things such as where does this drive to survive come from? The will to survive and reproduce are considered as elemental  to evolutionary psychologists as Gaia and Uranus was to the greeks, just as given (we have to want to live in order to develop ways in which you maximise your ability to survive).  This will lead to interesting philosophy and flirts with the Conatus of 17^th century  philosophers like Spinoza or Hobbes, the innate striving that takes manifest as the will to live and reproduce.

In summary, War is not immoral, in fact to a degree it can even be seen as an ethics, though not a pleasant one, as war is a way of approaching life which can be viewed in nature (ants fighting ants for example) and some have advocated this strongly like Genghis Khan. Yet this ethic is not a humanism and so will ultimately become the weaker choice: through strength learn gentleness, through gentleness strength will prevail!  But as yet War is a consequence of a composite of psychologies one to one, whilst we easily forget the homogeneous identity when we see dead individual soldiers and see war as a lots of individuals fighting, it is actually one person from many fighting another from their many, and is just a larger expression of us in the hostile forces of nature. 

  This is not to mean that war is necessary or inevitability, war is just a natural extension of ourselves at our current social evolutionary level, but new understanding of philosophy, psychology and science will show an abundance of resources and technologies that render conflict unnecessary, well that's the dream. 

By Tomas Moon

The Philosophy Takeaway 'War' Issue 28

Tough on war: soft on the causes of war - By Martin Prior

Tough on war: soft on the causes of war

To consider this issue in depth I would first like to consider the drawbacks of ‘Make Love not War.’  As argued in an Issue 20 (‘There is no purpose of life...and all people are equal in pursuing it’), we can see a circularity in the purpose of life: the purpose of life is love, and the purpose of love is life:

Can we not have a society that recognises and celebrates this circularity, and recognise that this is incompatible with war, in which the power to exploit is either asserted or defended?

But life can pour cold water on things: love does indeed lead to life, but in a society where economic hardship has been overcome, the population doubles every generation, so we hear.  Thus Britain became ‘great’ through exploiting India among others, then her population increased and many Brits went out to places like Australia, Canada, etc.  And some of course came back!

So by simply asserting love, we are indeed tough on wars, but without recognising factors such as population growth, we are being soft on the causes of war.

A very important illustration of tough on war but soft on the causes, is that of European integration.  The theory goes that with European integration, we come closer together and in effect ‘love each other’.  But to pursue this love, we pursue precisely the same financial orthodoxy that gave rise to Nazism and thence WWII.  Within the economic union, the rich get richer and the poor poorer: not just people within nations, but across nations.  Something has to snap.

By Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'War' Issue 28

The femininist face of war: - By Samuel Poole

The femininist face of war:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that war is just for men, what? I mean, those delicate ladies know their role(s) in a man’s war – as nurses, tending the sick and holding the hands of our boys in their dying moments, or as letter writing romantic sweethearts, raising the morale of the troops.

Whilst the antecedent paragraph was highly patriarchal, and, of course, tongue in cheek, I do wonder how the feminist movement can rectify their conflicting attitudes towards armed conflict: that a) war is a social construct of a patriarchal society and b) a woman should have equality of opportunity in any career she chooses…but does this logic even continue to allow women to be cannon fodder? How can we square that circle?

As the previous question suggests, the two positions contradict each other to such an extent that one cannot have it both ways. You’re either a feminist that supports militarisation or a feminist who doesn’t. It seems, at least to me, that if a feminist supports war per se, then she isn’t a truly moral person, nor is she really a feminist. And that’s the issue, isn’t it? You have to fight, even when invading oil rich nations don’t have words of mass distraction, sorry, I meant weapons of mass destruction. That’s why I couldn’t be a soldier. I could, and would, enlist if I felt the war had a true moral cause.

Nevertheless, whatever the case, “liberal” feminists certainly support women in the military. Erin Solaro makes her opinions on matters military quite clear:

“I am an overt and unabashed feminist: I believe women have the same civic and human worth men do. Part of that worth is the right – and the responsibility – to bear arms in the common defense…we – women – liver her too, and we are equal in all things, not just the good in society.”

I was going to go elsewhere with this humble essay. Yet – yet! – that last line resonates with me. And it should resonate with you, too.  That last line! I repeat: “Not just the good in society”. Is Solaro implying that the armed forces don’t represent the “good” in society? And this is coming from an unabashed feminist. Is she saying that women have an equal right to make a chaos of this world? This statement invalidates the (supposedly) more extreme feminists’ claim that war is a patriarchal – and patriarchal only -- construct.

Luckily enough, I spoke to a female naval officer at the philosophy stall. She, and her male counterparts, believed that the issue of gender was not important. They stated that an individual has merits and that these merits were not dependent on gender. And as 15% of the armed forces in the UK are female, can feminists claim that all of them are victims of patriarchal conditioning?

Undoubtedly, there have been female warriors. I assume images of Joan of Arc, Boadicea and Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the ultimate Russian femme fatale, come to mind.  I do, however, think, quite sincerely, they are famous because they buck the trend. If something is an exception to a rule, which very much determines that there is a “rule”, albeit a socially constructed one, about gender roles and the military. Except it’s not really a “rule”, is it?

Well, it is and it isn’t. Women have the opportunity to join the armed services, but they don’t have the opportunity to fight on the front line, at least in the United Kingdom.  This is a clear instance of social conditioning determining law, yet again. But can we blame our Judeo-Christian moral background? Not if modern day Occupied Palestine (Israel is a state I refuse to recognise) is anything to judge by.

Occupied Palestine is under such a threat that women have to be considered for military service. Any notions of women being stereotyped as delicate flowers are rejected by sheer necessity – although female soldiers are objectified, so it seems women can never win.

And that is the issue here, isn’t it? Women are so judged by society, even most post-enlightenment, western societies, that whatever they do, they will face discrimination.  They – female soldiers -- have to deal with stereotyping, such as that they are lesbian bitches with penis envy, clearly trying to overcompensate for not have the raw penis-toting machismo of a man, whilst they can’t conform to their Barbie and Ken, all things pink, career sacrificing, heterosexual, child-bearing sisters.

I must admit that I’m a man of strong convictions. I’ve certainly been described as arrogant and macho, even rude at times. These characteristics are synonymous with young, immature males.  As a result, I’m used to writing strongly worded polemics, that are excellently written (I did mention I was arrogant) and organised.

This topic, however, is quite staggering. It’s so very, very broad and I really have opened not one, but many, cliché cans of worms. There’s so much to cover. I feel I’ve been tangential, but that wasn’t my objective. I just want to this topic justice, which I can’t in under one thousand words.

Nonetheless, if there is a so-called conclusion to this tumultuous mish mash of an essay, here it is: whilst I’m anti-war and proud of it, I genuinely empathise with females in the armed forces. Society judges them unfairly, and they draw criticism from chauvinists and feminists alike. But what’s worse is that they’re mostly judged by the mindless mainstream for not conforming to archaic gender roles.  So whilst I’m dangerously befuddled by this issue, I’m going to have to leave you, as Levitch would say, dancing with my confusion, but quite proud to do so.

By Samuel Poole

The Philosophy Takeaway 'War' Issue 28

A short dialogue between Socrates and Coros on the nature of war - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

A short dialogue between Socrates and Coros on the nature of war

Oh Socrates, I do hear the horns of war a'sounding. Is it true? Will we soon be caught up in the violent ambitions of powerful men?

I fear so, dear Coros.

And now we lament our impending doom, oh dearest of philosophers. But say, how did we arrive at this sorrowful point? What was the root cause of this invasion?

It could have been many things: Our enemy may have been tricked into thinking us a threat (led by our 'mad tyrant') and thus launched an invasion to defend against our invisible armies - the paranoid fools!

  Or perhaps the desires of their people are so great that they grow outwards like an infinite weed, forever seeking to take more and more resources to fuel their greedy machine.

  I suppose it could be tradition or religious motivation; a way of finding purpose in life by submitting to powerful military authority; and it does give all of those soldiers something to do. If they were all on the bread line, it would cause utter chaos.

  I imagine it is a mixture of these things, and perhaps more things I have left out in my foolishness; for I do after all know nothing of anything!

Ha, all plausible explanations my modest Socrates. Before we are called to fight for our very survival, do you have any advice on stopping future invasions?

Fortunately for us friends of reason, I do. The first, is to have more spears and shields than your enemy! Or failing that, lots of spears and shields and plenty of allies; this way it will be far too much of a hassle for them to conquer us and they will go for the next weakest prey.

  The second, is for us to travel into the heart of their greatest cities and convince them that their expansionist lifestyle is morally wrong, and that all of the art, technology, architecture, literature, and all of those other things they create by exploiting and destroying other people, should be done away with for a simpler pastoral life, free from desire altogether.

Oh come off it Socrates, such a utopian vision is impossible to create! Fancy that, humans roaming around like cows. Such a state is regression surely?

A peaceful regression all the same! I suppose we could change the values of the city-states, to divert our natural desires for growth in a different direction, guided by powerful philosopher kings.

Ah, so the young lad will no longer wish to join the cavalry as a fledgling Achilles, but wander the market place in search for reason - a fledgling Socrates!

Yes, something like that Coros, although no one ought to mirror a sad old codger such as myself; I should not like to inspire a generation of fools.

But of course not Socrates. Ah yes, if only we could channel our insatiable desires in such a way that did not destroy so much around us.

Aye old friend, yet this is no time for woeful lament.

Indeed, let us ready our weapons and prepare for battle.

So long as no student of history, staring back across the annals of time, thinks this battle to be a case of honoured contest between two armies of equals, then I shall be happy to play my part in our doomed defence.

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'War' Issue 28