War as "necessary evil"

[Elder-Basilisk]

Since we've moved the discussion to Just War Theory, I think it's worth discussing whether or not it's applicable. My understanding of Just War Theory is admittedly not as subtle as Elear's but I was under the rather distinct impression that Just War Theory did not always view war as an evil--even if it might be necessary. On the contrary, a just war might actually be good--something that citizens were morally obliged to support and that governments were morally obliged to prosecute.

Similarly, I get the sense that there are many who would say not only that justified killing does not make the killer evil, but that it might actually be good and even obligatory. In the "Saturday Morning Cartoon" morality, it is certainly seen as admirable. (Well, Saturday Morning Cartoon may not be right because nobody dies in most of them--it's certainly the case in the classical world and even much of the early modern world though. It would be hard to read the Greek epics or the stories of the knights of the round table or Beowulf, etc without getting the sense that the use of deadly violence in socially acceptable venues was not only tolerated but actually approved, lionized, and admired).

Both of those perspectives seem to be worlds apart from a perspective that says that even a necessary war or a justified killing is still evil--even if it doesn't necessarily make the warrior or the killer evil. The idea that "there is no good war" is certainly light years from the so-called Saturday Morning Cartoon version of World War II or the American Civil War.

And I think that it is the view that wars can be good and obligatory that animated Western civilization through the majority of its history (probably until World War II in most of Europe and until the Vietnam War in the US). While there are traditions that view war/killing as evil whether or not it is just/justified, I don't think that they have--except possibly in very recent years in Western Europe--come to dominate thought and discourse to such an extent that we could use them as examples of what a culture that thought war a necessary evil might look like.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

...The President is the only man in the U.S. who can order Americans to go to war, further, he can only order the military (though Congress can draft civillians).

Great post Elaer. One minor quibble: per the US Constitution, only Congress may declare war. The President has "war-making" powers, which the courts have ruled to be that he prosecutes the war which Congress declares. Even in the case of an attack on US soil, the president is specifically authorized by the Constitution only to act to repel the attack and must immediately seek Congressional approval for wider action. In fact, early presidents, including Jefferson, did just this.

Yes, I know - the situation has become terribly muddled since the end of World War II (the last Congressionally-declared war the US has fought), so your point probably more accurately reflects current practice. But the intent of the framers is clear on this point: Congress declares war, the president fights it.

 

[William Ronald]

Very good responses. I think this is one of the most interesting threads on war on EN World in sometime.

Elder Basilisk, I should not that in Sung China, before its conquest by the Mongols, warriors were looked down upon by many of the ruling elite. The scholar class were in general opposed to an increase in power To quote from "Daily Life in China on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion: 1250-1276" by Jacques Genet: "It is clear that the origin of the comntempt and suspicion that the arts of war were regarded lies in one of those choice by which every civilization is characterized, and that this attitude was in sympathy with a concept of human behavior that this attitude was in sympathy with a comcept of human behavior that put the emphasis on ritual and on the moral code rather than on any form of direct action." Additionally, Genet pointed out, that the scholar class was hostile to policies tending to encourage a more powerful military. There was also in many parts of society a poor opinion of the ethics of soldiers.

I would argue that the an important consideration on how war is viewed in a society centers on the religious values. As previously pointed out, societies embracing a pacifistic doctrine may view war as an evil that has to have limits. Others, perhaps viewing it as a divine commandment to defend one's own life, may dislike war but allow it under certain circumstances. For example, either for self-defense or to fulfill a divine commandment. Of course, there may still be rules limiting what one can legitimately do in time of war. (I am trying to avoid too much religious discussion. However, it should be noted that different traditions have had beliefs on how a "just war" is conducted. It should also be noted that the doctrines concerning those beliefs have been subject to interpreptation.)

In a magical world with clerics who can cast communes or summon representatives of their deities, societies worshipping good-aligned deities might have a clearer idea of what is a just war. It is also possible that some deities might allow there worshippers the free will to make some interpreptation of doctrine. Over time, a faith may develop new doctrines based on their core beliefs. Or a deity's views may change over time. In Sepulchrave's story hour, for example, Oronthon in the view of some seems to occassionally struggle between the concepts of justice and mercy.

For myself, I take the right of self defense to be a given based on my own beliefs. From what I have read of history and seen in my own lifetime, it seems that it only takes one side to start a war. Even if one side surrenders, there is no guarantee that an attacker will not harm non-combatants. Considering the nature of some foes in many D&D settings, always surrendering to an agressor would likely spell the death of a culture to that of an agressor.

 

[Elaer]

Just War Theory doesn't really examine whether or not a war can be considered good, just whether or not we can be "right in action" to wage wage war. Being as most of the theory is based in classical ethics, particularly medieval classical ethics, you might argue that justification cannot change the morality of an action, only alleviate restrictions against it. However, you could argue in a similar logical fashion that if a moral man can do it, then that indicates war is not inherently immoral.

Really all these theories and conjectures go back to something much more practical than whether or not killing is an evil act: How do you treat the men who do it, who do you train the warriors. If killing could be a morally blank action, that is to say like driving your car is neither good or evil or shooting a gun, then there wouldn't be a certain group of people who were allowed to do it exclusively. At best, it is a necessary evil (as it was viewed the Roman Republic) and the warriors are trained to be relucant until called upon, the put their citizenship first, and understand that this is a dirty task that their country needs them to do. At worst (as in feudalism) the warriors are not properly brought up with a practical understanding of just war, view war as their birthright, and look upon violence as a legitimate way of solving problems (might is right).

To bring this back to gaming: There are, in my humble opinion, two ways to bring this back to fictional world (with violence as a necessary evil instead of a morally neutral action). First, you can have a lawful good society in the style of Plato's Republic or some similar form of ideal government, where the warriors loathe war, but have been given the proper training and guidance to follow their liege's commands. Here you can also have more primitive cultures without a developed warrior class (usually hunter-gatherers, because agriculture demands that you be able to defend your land, and caused the transition from hunters to warriors). Second, you can have a fallen society, who never embraced its own ideals of Just War, instead falling into the brutality and thuggery of that is man's most base affliction. In this society, the warrior's lament is strong, and they tell stories and wait for the day that some enlightened warrior, like the kings of old (like Beowulf or Arthur) will come to free them from the afflictions they cannot cast off themselves. They may not even know why or acknowledge the moral problems that afflict their society, only that they are fallen and have none of the warrior's virtues among themselves (and thus await the Return of the King. While anyone who saw the movie knows that neither Jackson or Tolkien was attempting to paint war against evil as evil, anyone can see the necessary reluctance for power that is required of a great warrior).

 

[Dogbrain]

If war is an inherently evil act, that means that the nation defending itself from invasion is evil, merely for not wanting to be conquered and pillaged. Or at the very least, that for a nation to defend itself is considered an evil act.

So you are unable to conceive of "the lesser evil"?

You are unable to conceive of a person or nation stuck in a situation where they simply cannot choose a pure, holy, and saintly alternative and still survive?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So you are unable to conceive of "the lesser evil"?

Sure I can. But a nation that keeps choosing "lesser evils" will invariably become evil. Just because you had no choice but to do an evil act doesn't make you immune to the corrupting nature of that act. If war is an evil act, then a nation besieged by enemies on all sides, that must continually defend itself from invasion, will become tainted as a result.

You are unable to conceive of a person or nation stuck in a situation where they simply cannot choose a pure, holy, and saintly alternative and still survive?

Not at all. And if it happened only once, then fine, the nation could perform the evil act of war to defend itself, and still be a generally good nation afterward. Just as with PCs, one evil act does not an evil nation create.

But in a medieval situation, where wars are more common, then this becomes problematic. A good nation could engage in many wars and survive, but it would eventually cease to be a good nation, because the incessant evil acts would turn it.

Personally, I don't think that self-defense (nationally or individually) has any evil taint. A person should be able to defend himself a thousand times, or daily, and not be evil simply because he chooses to fight for his life. The same goes for the nation. Thus, I cannot, from my own moral perspective, conceive of a moral paradigm in which war, rather than a neutral act defined by circumstance, is instead an inherently evil act. Because to accept that is to accept that if you defend yourself long enough, you will invariably become corrupted.

 

[clark411]

I'd just like to say a big thank you to Elaer for posting. It's not terribly often that I'm taught while reading the boards, not because I know lots but rather because many aren't willing to share what they've learned as well as what they simply choose to think. In this instance, you were and you did!

Huzzah!

 

[Elaer]

Thanks for the support. Happy holidays

 

[Agback]

I'm also reminded of a quote from Steven Brust's Dragon where a character remarks that wars are started by the defender, not the attacker. If the defender would not resist, there would be no war. I've found that to be a fascinating way to analyse conflict.

Surely that depends on the actions of the attacker?

If the attacker starts out by, say, marching across the border and hoisting his flag, and the defender responds by shooting him then you have an argument that the defender started the violence. But if the attacker's very first act is to shoot a customs official from across the frontier I don't see that you have a leg to stand on.

Suppose that you are sitting on a park bench eating lunch, and that someone walks up behind you quietly and nonchalantly and bashes the back of your skull in with a mace. Like to make the argument that you started the fight? Like to make the argument that the bloke with the mace is the defender and you the attacker?

"Nanking was dressed provocatively!"

Regards,


Agback

 

[William Ronald]

Good points, Agback.

I would like to say that in your first example, the defender could have tried to put diplomatic force to use and try to have a larger force kindly ask their neighbor to go back home --- and take a remedial course in map reading. However, I can't really recall a real world war where the first action was merely to plant a flag.

Generally, I think it only takes one foe to start a war and that self-defense is a morally legitimate doctrine. In a campaign where gods help set the morality, not defending one's self if attacked could be regarded as a sin. The morality of warfare in our own world is complex, and might be just as complex in an RPG campaign.

Elaer, very good posts. How have you put the doctrine of just war into use in your campaign?