Western & Chinese philosophies on war: part I

essay

NGUYEN Ngoc Huy

PHIL 207: Intro to classical Chinese Philosophy

AY 2011-2012, TERM 1

If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how? - Joan Baez History is written in blood. Men have been fighting each other since the very first day of their existence, despite being fully aware of the pain and suffering and likelihood of death that wars deliver. So under which circumstances will a man go to war? It is sensible to say that when his survivability is threatened, a man will fight to death and risk losing some of what he currently has so that he may not lose all. And in the case of scare resources or conflicting interests, where the survivability of one civilization depends on depriving that of other civilizations, wars happen when neither side is naturally or morally inclined to do. But are wars always necessary, and on which moral doctrines will man base his decisions? Can a man ever be able to justify his decision to go to war, regardless of his purposes? And is fighting for ones life at the expense of others in all cases an optimal moral choice? Nature dictates that one species feeds on other kinds of species for the necessary substances required to live on, and mankind has not had a single moment without wars on earth. So are wars always an integrated part of our human experiences? Is our fighting proclivity the basic instinct inherent in all carnivores, or is it something a civilized man also exercises when faced with dire circumstances? And is there a correct way to wage wars, that wars can be humane and fair, or it is all barbaric and indiscriminate slaughter? This piece of writing aims to address the above questions, from both Western and Chinese context, and is divided into 2 parts. This first part brings forth the traditional Western views on the subject of war and their Chinese counterparts, with more emphasis on the former. Wars can be moral, immoral or amoral depending on the philosophical standpoints. Each philosophical standpoint behind the morality of war will be examined closely from both Western and Chinese context. At the end of this essay, a conclusion will be drawn regarding how the Chinese philosophies on war differ from or match those of the Western world. The second essay will examine the subject more closely from a Chinese perspective, tracing back to the core doctrines of each well-known philosophers to see how an overall Chinese philosophy on war has been arrived at. I. Introduction The three most famous Western schools of thought on wars are: Just War Theory, Realism and Pacifism. Just War Theory is the most commonly accepted view on war, asserting that wars in general are immoral but there are circumstances where wars are just and morally right. Just War theorists argue that a war is just when used to defense against violation of universal human rights. That being said, a universal and unanimous point of view of what constitutes human rights has to be agreed on in order for Just War Theory to make moral senses. Fighting in defense of ones own interests is considered morally right and is widely accepted. But the Theory invites

controversies when it goes beyond that to say it is also reasonable to bring armies across borders to fight against governments who are violating human rights in their own territories. Besides the subjectivity of what should be considered human rights, the question of whether one should interfere in the governance of others brings another dimension to the arguments against this extended part of Just War Theory. Unlike Just War Theory, Realism does not apply the moral concepts guiding an individual when it comes to the affairs of the states. Realists place the interest of national power and security above all and seek to do whatever possible, by all means, to promote it. Talk of morality has no place in warfare and that a countrys only concern should be to influence other sovereignties and implement policies that will ultimately benefit its own people. Although Realism does not say that wars are always beneficial, it supports the arguments to use mass public violence if it is proved to be in the states best interest. This point of view is very similar to that of consequentialism. The third view on war is Pacifism. Pacifists do not agree with Realists regarding the applicability of moral doctrines of individuals to the foreign policies of the state. For pacifists, sovereignty is also a human that represents all its citizens and should be guided with moral principals. Whereas war is sometimes justifiable in Just War Theory, it is always prohibitive in Pacifism. Pacifists believe that all conflicts can be solved through the means of talks and non-violence protests. This apparently puts them at a more vulnerable state than the Just War Theorists and the Realists, but on the moral ground it is hard to discount their theory of Pacifism. The Chinese philosophy text also offers 3 similar approaches to war: war is necessary and sometimes just, war as a means to advance national interests and war is always immoral. Of the first approach war is necessary, Confucius was an ardent advocate as he considered war an evil but realized that a just war could be inevitable: "The prime necessity for the success in such a war is an army entirely clear as to why it is fighting and thoroughly convinced of the justice of its cause". The second approach is Sun Tzus justification for war, as was reflected in his book The art of war. And the third viewpoint can be attributed to Mencius, who affirmed that there are no righteous wars. II. Western and Chinese philosophies on war: a comparison We shall now take a closer look at the three above-mentioned approaches to war from both Western and Chinese viewpoints. 1. Just war theory and Confucianism According to Just War Theory, for a war to be justified, it has to satisfy the following requirements: - Just cause: this is the most important rule that governs the justifiability the act of mass violence of war. The most widely accepted causes for war

include: self-defense, protection of others from external attacks, and use of mass violence to protect victims of violation of human rights. - War as the last resort: a country may go to war only after it has exhausted all other peaceful alternatives to resolve the conflict such as diplomatic negotiation. As war is a serious issue and involves the likelihood of annihilation of the whole country, it should be declared only after having been proved to be morally just and reasonable. - Fair chance of success: a country should never go to war if it can foresee the failure on its side. The essence of this requirement is to prevent a futile attempt of mass violence. - Proportionality: war should only be declared if its benefits are calculated to outweigh its costs. As loss of human lives is a huge factor of the calculation, this requirement is not to be hastily judged. The philosophy of Just War Theory can be likened to that of Confucius. In his Analects, Confucius said, to lead an uninstructed people to war is to murder them, but he also implied that war is sometimes necessary and that the army should be clear about the purposes of their fighting. Apparently we see that Just War Theory and Confucianism are very much similar, but one distinctive difference lies in the basic doctrines both schools of thought use to base their conclusion on. For Just War Theory, it is rather consequentialist in a sense that an unjust war should not be proceeded with, as there is no benefit to be gained, whereas Confucius arrived at his conclusion against unjust wars on the ground that it is not ethical or humane. 2. Realism and Sun Tzu Realists believe that interests of the sovereign is the utmost important concern when it comes to foreign policies and warfare. In war, a country should do it best to win it without regard for moral issues involved. If a state is moral and so much ethical issues are involved, the state may be exploited by other nations who do not share the same codes of ethics. Such is also the view of Sun Tzu. In his book The art of war, Sun Tzu said, The way of war is a way of deception. It appears that Sun Tzu did not have an interest in whether a war is just or unjust and his use of solders is to the ultimate victory of the war rather than to the benefits of his men. The only chapter where humanity was mentioned is the last one, with respect to the treatment of spies. But then the humane treatment of spies stems from their practical benefits rather than from Sun Tzus sincere regard for his soldiers: Spies are a key element in warfare. On them depends an army's every move. 3. Pacifism and Mencius

Pacifism rejects war in favour of peace. It is not the act of violence that pacifists object, but rather the degree of brutality of war and its disastrous social effect. While it is not clear that to what extend of violence a pacifist may tolerate, it is clear that pacifists object to killing of all forms and purposes. For them, war is always unjust and on no moral ground can one justify his acts of mass violence. On this, Mencius offered a similar viewpoint. In his book, Mencius said, The benevolent man has no enemy under heaven. When the prince the most benevolent was engaged against him who was the most the opposite, how could the blood of the people have flowed till it floated the pestles of the mortars? This viewpoint apparently stems from Menciuss belief in the four beginnings of human nature, one of which says that humans are good in nature and that they have a deep commiseration for the welfare of others. III. Conclusion This essay has laid the ground for moral judgment of wars, as well as given the three most prominent schools of thought on the subject of war. Through this, we can see that war is a universal subject and the emotions involved can be felt alike on different parts of the world, hence the very much similarity between the overall Western and Chinese philosophical view on the subject. However, the basic doctrines each Chinese philosopher used to arrive at the final views on war are vastly different from those of the Western world and will be examined in details in the second essay.