William James's 'Moral Equivalent of War' essay

[Wotan]

Philosopher William James in 1906 said that in order to defeat the phenomenon of war -- with all of its positive impacts upon human character, social unity, and personal greatness -- we need "the moral equivalent of war." He suggested socialism and/or mandatory collective national service for youth. I suggest rather ferocious effort at business/wealth, sports/games, love/friendship, art, education, and volunteerist organizations. Also goodly attempts to defeat human suffering and DEATH. The combination of most of these should hugely get the competitive fires of individual greatness burning -- while still promoting human solidarity and brotherhood -- and prove to be viable "sublimations" and superior alternatives to the extraordinary horror, destruction, and expense of warfare.

http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm [The Moral Equivalent of War; 8 pages of semi-difficult reading]

[Cherring109]

William James is a good example of a bad philosopher.

[Wotan]

William James is a good example of a bad philosopher.

William James is a good example of a very strong philosopher, and his 1906 essay is still hugely influential. It's a shame that so far no-one here on OO.net takes his analysis seriously or provides a superior alternative (other than my own). In the face of silence, William James surely wins by default.

[Grames]

William James is a good example of a very strong philosopher, and his 1906 essay is still hugely influential. It's a shame that so far no-one here on OO.net takes his analysis seriously or provides a superior alternative (other than my own). In the face of silence, William James surely wins by default.

He is influential because he takes the pre-existing premise of collectivism and runs with it. Thus we have gone from the war socialism of World War One, to the "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs" and President Carter's appeal for a moral equivalent of war in wearing sweaters in the winter (energy conservation). Note how he equivocates plunder gained by war with plunder gained by trade, wiping out the concept of force and the principle of rights. He is amateurish, he is terrible, he is a symptom of the disease of collectivism.

[Dante]

Although I find a great many things to take issue with in the essay, I think James' fundamental problem is that he thinks in collectives and societies, rather than individuals. I will quote the core of his argument that we need some way to retain the "martial virtues" if we are to end war:

I do not believe that peace either ought to be or will be permanent on this globe, unless the states, pacifically organized, preserve some of the old elements of army-discipline. A permanently successful peace-economy cannot be a simple pleasure-economy. In the more or less socialistic future toward which mankind seems drifting we must still subject ourselves collectively to those severities which answer to our real position upon this only partly hospitable globe. We must make new energies and hardihoods continue the manliness to which the military mind so faithfully clings. Martial virtues must be the enduring cement; intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command, must still remain the rock upon which states are built — unless, indeed, we which for dangerous reactions against commonwealths, fit only for contempt, and liable to invite attack whenever a centre of crystallization for military-minded enterprise gets formed anywhere in their neighborhood.

The war-party is assuredly right in affirming and reaffirming that the martial virtues, although originally gain by the race through war, are absolute and permanent human goods. Patriotic pride and ambition in their military form are, after all, only specifications of a more general competitive passion. They are its first form, but that is no reason for supposing them to be its last form. Men are now proud of belonging to a conquering nation, and without a murmur they lay down their persons and their wealth, if by so doing they may fend off subjection. But who can be sure that other aspects of one's country may not, with time and education and suggestion enough, come to be regarded with similarly effective feelings of pride and shame?

His argument is based on the virtues that "we" should collectively hold as a society, what virtues "we" need to respect if we are not to become some soft, fat, complacent society ready to be plundered. He thinks in terms of virtues as societal trends, and thus the only way we can retain the virtues he argues we need is to impose programs onto society as a whole. He views only two possibilities: either society remains martial in some way or society becomes soft and contemptible.

His entire viewpoint is incorrect, and his two possibilities are a false dilemma. Virtues are held by individuals. It is individuals who think and evaluate and hold viewpoints. There is nothing incompatible about having a majority of society reject the "martial virtues" of "intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command" in their own lives, while retaining a strong military which is founded upon characteristics like these (Obviously I would write a different list of positive characteristics which the military should retain, but that's a side issue).

It is certainly true that we will always need a military, and that we will need one which cultivates many of what he considers to be the "martial virtues" in soldiers and commanders. The demands of war require a different list of characteristics than the demands of, say, business; this is undeniably true. However, this can be accomplished perfectly well in a society where not everyone thinks like a soldier.

[Wotan]

Dante -- I appreciate the seriousness of your answer (finally!). Maybe William James won't win the debate after all. And, yes, his whole essay is considerably off in that he thinks collectivistically about 90% of the time in it.

Still, I think everyone is missing his main point. Life is a kind of passionate, throbbing, exultant phenomenon. Without war, life become insipid, colorless, and hardly worth living. Or such is James's argument. So we NEED a non-war alternative to keep life exciting, thrilling, vibrant, and hugely fun. AND to give our lives meaning and purpose.

I think my suggestions to provide the needed passion and excitement are pretty good: competition in business/wealth, sports/games, love/friendship, art, education, and volunteerist organizations. AND competition against reality and yourself (which I forgot to add in my initial comment).

But maybe my alternatives aren't that great, and someone else can provide some superior alternatives, or show why my suggestions are weak.

[Dante]

Life is a kind of passionate, throbbing, exultant phenomenon. Without war, life become insipid, colorless, and hardly worth living. Or such is James's argument. So we NEED a non-war alternative to keep life exciting, thrilling, vibrant, and hugely fun. AND to give our lives meaning and purpose.

This viewpoint of war as giving meaning to people's lives is just one form of a more widespread and very destructive viewpoint, which basically boils down to this: the only possible source of "meaning" for one's life is some greater entity, external to oneself. In this case, it's being part of a greater collective (the nation) and living vicariously through its successes in battle. However, you see the same thing when you debate religious people on the existence of God; it won't be too long before someone says something like, "But if God doesn't exist, life is meaningless." For them, meaning comes from an external plan for their lives, from their being a child of god. People who have accepted this premise but haven't found their "meaning" are the type of people that cults so easily attract. So many people see their membership in some kind of larger collective as the central meaning for their lives.

It is this deeper premise, of which the war variant is only one incarnation, that need to be fought. All of the suggestions you made for substitutes are fine, in my opinion, but because they're all about personal success and happiness on an individual level, people who buy into this premise can't possibly imagine deriving the meaning of their life from these things. They first need to understand that the true meaning of one's life comes from one's own personal goals and values, which should properly be aimed at personal happiness rather than satisfying the demands of a collective.