In the course of human history World War 1 is seen as one of the most gruesome and deadliest wars with over 37 million soldiers and civilians caught in between political ideas and action. With over $32 billion used and close to 120,000 soldier deaths from just the United States you can see why United State’s pacifists believed in a future without war would be most beneficial. On the other hand we have European militarists that advocates that war is natural and necessary for the advancement of its people. In order to understand both sides, this essay will compare and contrast the ideas and reasoning of a European militarists, Bernhardi, in his book “War a Biological Necessity” and United States pacifists, William James, in his book “Moral Equivalent of War”. This essay will analyse two sources to understand their definition on war, if it is possible to eliminate war, and how they think war can be changed in their perspective while …show more content…
Bernhardi believes war creates growth and innovation for nations while James argues that if war can be avoided then it should be. In a way they both agree that war cannot be done away with completely due to human nature and would only not exist in a utopian society for William James. To finish up on their perspectives of war it wraps around to Bernhardi advocating that war in the right situations is important to advance a nation while William James would rather stay out of war until it is absolutely necessary. After reading and writing this report, both of these authors provide solid points that I personally believe in but Bernhardi’s ideas are more inline with mine. All in all war is a controversial topic with multiple sides all forming their own solutions but with Bernhardi and William James we can see two opposite sides to find compromise in
Since the beginning of time, war has been practiced for numerous reasons ultimately to benefit a group of people or nations. But, when war divides the world into two different sides with the capability to destroy faster than we can create, it makes us question, is war really worth it? With the aftermath of World War One, people we’re still divided, but for a different reason, after a war with a catastrophic amount of deaths we had militarists advocating to fight and pacifists demanding peace. The two sources I have used from this essay comes from a European militarist, Friedrich Von Bernhardi with his book “War a Biological Necessity” and United States pacifists, William James, in his book “Moral Equivalent of War”. Therefore this essay will review the
The authors of the book quote former President William Howard Taft by him saying that the war was “a cataclysm” and “a retrograde step in Christian civilization,” and “a disaster to mankind”. These profound words were found more prominently than you think, from different politicians and leaders in America. As the thought of war began to creep closer and closer into
“We all say not war, we are all for justice and peace. But sometimes in order to maintain peace, armed action is necessary. But we hope it won’t be the case"-by Silvio Bersuconi. This quote was said by former Italian Prime Minister who spoke about war.
Throughout the ages, wars have wreaked havoc and caused great destruction that lead to the loss of millions of lives. However, wars also have an immensely destructive effect on the individual soldier. In the novel All Quiet on the Western Front written by Erich Maria Remarque, one is able to see exactly to what extent soldiers suffered during World War 1 as well as the effect that war had on them. In this essay I will explain the effect that war has on young soldiers by referring to the loss of innocence of young soldiers, the disillusionment of the soldiers and the debasement of soldiers to animalistic men. Many soldiers entered World War 1 as innocent young boys, but as they experienced the full effect of the war they consequently lost their innocence.
On the other hand, Shaw argues that warfare is degenerate in nature. Therefore one can argue that propaganda and the demonization of entire nations during war matched with indiscriminate violence makes acts of war ultimately acts of genocide. This argument is particularly compelling when corresponded with the casualty rates of modern
The brutality of war has scarred and devastated the world since the beginning of time, and has drastically changed over the course of history. Many precious lives of loved ones have been lost to war and continue to as fighting rages on. Famous Revolutionary War hero, George Washington, stated “My first wish [as president] is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth” (George Washington Quotes). General Washington witnessed the terror of war while fighting for independence from Great Britain. Against his wishes, war and violence continued as history went on.
He claims that the WWI was “Armageddon” or the end of the world because it was the most destructive war ever witnessed by humanity. He also says that because it was a great war, the criminals and heroes cannot be found in such a war. However, these features are not what we saw in the past wars because in the old wars, there are heroes, such as Fredrick, Napoleon, Hannibal who physically lead their soldiers in the front lines of the army, but this cannot be seen in this war because of the decline of individual’s role in the new war that the process is a cooperative affair rather than individual. Moreover, this new feature is the reason of not having “loin-hearted warriors” because if the leader is away from his soldiers, then who will motivate them and lead them physically to do their job. As he mentions that it is not a stock market for the generals to do their job far away from the center, but it is war and they needs to be at the center of the battlefield and seriously direct their army.
Private Peaceful is a historical fiction novel written by Michael Morpurgo. The story is set in the homefront, school, and battlefront during World War I. This story revolves around the powerless Peaceful brothers, Charlie and Tommo, who face injustice between people who have power and people who do not. Throughout the novel, Morpurgo tells a message to the readers that the rich and powerful victimise the poor and the weak.
Throughout Chapter five of her book Shadows of War, Carolyn Nordstrom shares her views on war in terms of social, physical and mental goals and punishes of such violence. To begin, one of the first goals of war as defined by Nordstrom is a direct result of a threat of loss of control. She explains that it is common for one military to feel the need to destroy another when their control over a certain (land area owned or controlled by someone) is under threat (56). An interesting point that Nordstrom makes is relating to/about (community of people/all good people in the world)'s do not tell the difference between the existence of different violences. As stated by Nordstrom, most people will naturally tell/show the difference between different wars; however, very few tell/show the difference between the experience of violence throughout such wars (57).
Peaceful Resistance no matter what way you look at it, it 's still going against someone whether it involves words or actions, resistance still causes more conflict. The last 5 years we have had people say they want change through these “peaceful protest” but these peaceful protests have done nothing but turn to violent riots were theirs damage to vehicles, business families rely on destroyed, bystanders hurt, officers killed and our country torn apart. Back when Martian Luther King Jr was around and he had his Peaceful Resistance or rallies for equality, they were peaceful and brought our country together with something that needed to be changed, but the protest we’ve had the last 5 years… he would be ashamed of. Peaceful Resistance to laws does negatively impact our free society in America. First going along with what I said about there being “peaceful rallies” even though some people may be at these rallies to make a difference to support their opinion, not everyone can respect that.
Margaret Mead was an anthropologist of her time, which was her reasoning for conducting a scientific study of the development of a variety of human beings and their societies and finding its connection to the development of warfare. As an anthropologist Margret Mead often studied her theory through observation of culture. Considering the two types of schism of the development of warfare, Margaret Mead is convinced that through the combination of both sociological inevitability and biological necessity, it is a reason that cultures use warfare. But in 1940, Margaret Mead argued in her essay, “ Warfare Is Only an Invention- Not a Biological Necessity,” that through research and case study she believes to have proven that war is not a biological necessity and is not “in our genes”, but clearly is an invention of mankind that had developed over time and is used today when someone is outraged our there is a sociological need for certain resources leading to the need of starting warfare. Warfare started out as an invention and developed through
“Is war ever justified?”, is a question with its solution first originating from Christian theology. Saint Augustine was the first individual to offer a theory on this, and introduced the “Just War Theory”, which was later revised by Saint Thomas Aquinas, creating just 3 criteria to be met in order for a war to be just: “War needed to be waged by legitimate authority, have a just cause, and have the right intentions”. Since then, the “Just War Theory” was been used by many to justify their wars, however, there many other factors that were not taken into consideration that could be used to justify a war. I feel that war is justified and will be looking into points that are for the justification of war. War is justified when there is a “just cause”, and when it is used as a “last resort”.
Being moral in a growing and continually changing world is no easy task, especially when there is no specific rules or guidelines to follow. If one were to ask specifically what is morality, Appiah would say that living a moral life is living an “eudaimonia,”(Aristotle) or the idea of highest good, normally translated into “happiness,” or “flourishing” (402). Living a life to the highest good is a very vague answer, considering everyone’s definition of good is different, and everyone has a different view of happiness. These opinions are so diverse because morality is not just one idea, but a mix of ideas that make up each person’s moral values. In these difference in morals, there is bound for someone getting hurt in some way, either physically, emotionally, or even spiritually.
Preventive and preemptive war in Utopia, Book II. When we saw the title of the chapter for the first time, we thought that it would deal with how Utopians prevent war, but what More is trying to say goes far away from this. In fact, the chapter is a detailed exposition of casus belli, military strategies and techniques. The meaning of Utopia is connected to America’s discovery, the world that serves as the location of fictional presentations of political ideas. At the same time, “this production means for the author to express genuine and real political views about his own circumstances” (pp. 57, The Ethics of Foreign Policy).
War on Religion There is a belief among people that declares religion as the main cause of wars worldwide, and it has been the main cause of violence throughout the history of humanity. While we cannot deny that, some battles such as the crusades and the Lebanese civil war were based on religious faith, it is totally illogical to consider religion as the main cause of wars. Moreover, although there is also no disagreement that some extremist in Islam were behind 9/11, it is considered a misjudgment to say that all individuals in this religion convey the concept of violence and cruelty. The fact is non-religious incentives take the responsibility for almost all of humans’ wars. Lives lost during religious wars are nothing compared to those lost during non-religious wars.so why people believe that religion is the cause of wars, why they are wrong and do the extremist represent religions?