Essay On Moral Equivalent Of War

1229 Words5 Pages
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
Open Document