About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

War…..

AC Grayling for The Guardian

Saturday September 22, 2001

War is both the product of an earlier corruption and the producer of new corruptions - Lewis Mumford

War, always an evil, is sometimes the lesser of two evils. When it is, it is justified. The war against Nazism was a justified war, although not everything done in it by the opponents of Nazism was justified. This consideration prompts the inescapable question about the conduct of war: what should be its limits? Should ethics tie one's hands when faced with an implacable enemy, whose victory would be a disaster for the world? Churchill said, "There is no middle course in wartime." This hard truth forces one to recognise another: that every war, however justified, reduces the stock of human good, and diminishes civilisation - sometimes destroying in seconds what centuries were devoted to building.

War prompted by religion, even indirectly, is never justified. Whatever the proximate excuse for such wars, the basis of every one is exactly the same, namely, suspicion and hostility engendered by differences of belief and associated culture. Christian armies mounted crusades against "infidels" to capture the holy places of the Middle East, and against "heretics" such as the Cathars to rebut their falsehoods by exterminating those who thought them true. These are entirely matters of ideology. None of the major faiths is bloodless; history reeks with the gore of their wars and persecutions, all the more disgusting a spectacle for being, in essence, as simple as this: A kills B because B does not agree with A that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

People should be left to believe what they like, so long as they harm no one else. Apart from normal expectations of politeness, it is not however clear why people should require their personal beliefs to be treated with special sensitivity by others, to the point that if others fail to tiptoe respectfully around them they will start throwing bombs. From a secular point of view, religious beliefs are at best absurd and at worst dangerous, and the amount of free play they are given in the public domain is a menace. Believed-in fairies should be kept at home as an entirely private matter, and their votaries encouraged to cease taking themselves so seriously that, when irritated by those who differ, they resort to Kalashnikovs. Apart from anything else, such reactions speak of little confidence in their own violently held certainties. When differences of belief and religion-based culture are the ultimate source of conflict, the real war that needs to be fought is the war of ideas. A secularist might hope that liberal scientific education would at last free the human spirit from its thraldom to ancient superstitions and practices. Realism prompts the more modest hope that people can learn to accept that others differ, that belief is a private matter, and that no one has the right to impose beliefs on others or to punish their non-acceptance.

This aspiration has a practical dimension. In order to accommodate a variety of religious and cultural differences in a single society, society itself needs to be wholly secular, most especially its educational institutions. "Faith-based" schools entrench and perpetuate the differences that too often lead to conflict; by educating children from all backgrounds together there is a far greater chance of mutual understanding and personal friendships. Enthusiasts of all faiths oppose secular education because exposure to other traditions has the effect of loosening the grip of their own. That, from a secular standpoint, is of course the consummation devoutly to be wished. The war of ideas today is what makes a difference to the occurrence or otherwise of shooting wars tomorrow. But the murderous grip of humanity's various immemorial belief systems is unavoidably here now, sprouting its bitter fruit. It is as hard for the innocents of one side to defend against the frenzy of fanatics as for those of the other to protect themselves against technological might. But the survivors, if there are any, can try to defend the future by winning the longer and greater war against the intolerance, bigotry, zealotry and hatred that so brutally divides humankind against itself.

10 comments:

Scott said...

It's interesting that the author claims that war for religion, when at it's core is an idea, is never justified yet they also claim that the "war against Nazism" (as they choose to frame it, which by it's nomenclature (use of the -ism) suggests it was a war against an idea) was justified. I'm sure I agree with his religion claim, I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of WWII.

At any rate, the authors conclusion is incorrect. Eliminating faith-based schools *IS* intolerant and against the liberalism they seek. The correct course of action is to build a wall of separation between education and State to rid such an important service of the State's homogenizing effect.

CyberKitten said...

scott said: I'm sure I agree with his religion claim, I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of WWII.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

scott said: Eliminating faith-based schools *IS* intolerant and against the liberalism they seek.

Strange. I thought that it would be *removing* a source of intollerence.....

scott said: The correct course of action is to build a wall of separation between education and State to rid such an important service of the State's homogenizing effect.

...and then who would educate our children? The Church? Ourselves? Private companies? You have *got* to be kidding me right? I'm no great fan of the State but the alternatives are frankly nightmarish.

Neo said...

"God" is a personal belief. A war over belief is not justified, I will agree with this. As to Scott's statement that Nazism as a believe is far from the truth, a belief does not harm anyone, to try and rid the world of Jews is... well face it, if you are killing people for their belief you are just plain wrong, if you go to war to stop the killing, you are justified.

Scott said...

NazISM didn't harm anyone, Nazis did.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure I agree with the statement "The war against Nazism was a justified war."

Strange. I thought that it would be *removing* a source of intollerence.....

Well how is removing it tolerant? I mean the author here claims that the real war that needs to be fought is the "war of ideas", but he has no interest in fighting it choosing instead to try and shelter minds from beliefs he does not agree with. It's a very weak argument.

If you say there can by no faith-based schooling your only going to have the shooting wars this author fears as you try and dictate culture to people, which never goes over terribly well.

...and then who would educate our children? The Church? Ourselves? Private companies? You have *got* to be kidding me right? I'm no great fan of the State but the alternatives are frankly nightmarish.

Well in the first place there is no such thing as "our" children. I have children. You may have children. Other people have children. You can make an argument that children belong to no one I suppose. You can make an argument that they belong to their parents. But it's a ridiculous fantasy to claim that they belong to some sort of collective.

Secondly, the "who" that would educate them is a variety of sources. As disgusting as you seem to find it that people educate their own children I assure you that it's quite efficient. In fact, my wife and I do it for a tenth of what we pay the State to educate everyone else's children. Of course the State *was* out of the education business for quite some time. For instance the time during the Enlightenment, when much of our Western ideas we refined and put to paper. I wonder how those nightmarishly uneducated homeschooled twits ever managed to do anything?

CyberKitten said...

neo said: if you are killing people for their belief you are just plain wrong, if you go to war to stop the killing, you are justified.

I agree that killing people for their beliefs is a pretty good definition of insanity. I don't know that we should go to war just to stop two groups killing each other though....

scott said: NazISM didn't harm anyone, Nazis did.

..and...

What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure I agree with the statement "The war against Nazism was a justified war."

WW2 wasn't fought over ideology (in the main). We went to war against the Axis powers because they attacked our Allies, killed loads of people & bombed our cities. Though objectionable their ideology was very much a secondary matter.

scott said: Well how is removing it tolerant?

Because removing sources of intolerence should lead to more tolerance... shouldn't it?

scott said: If you say there can by no faith-based schooling your only going to have the shooting wars this author fears as you try and dictate culture to people, which never goes over terribly well.

I think segregated schooling of any kind is a huge mistake - especially when people are segregated on religious or ideological grounds. Such schooling can only cause unecessary division. Secular societies should certainly not encourage such schools in any way and (I think) should actively work to eliminate them.

scott said: As disgusting as you seem to find it that people educate their own children I assure you that it's quite efficient.

..and how many people have the time, energy, resources or commitment to *fully* educate their own children? Very few I wager. If I was educated at home its pretty certain that I would never have gone to University and would probably ended up working on building sites, living from job to job and largely wasting what potential I have. The State may not educate to a high enough standard but at least it educates to a largely adequate one. Left in the hands of their parents most children would end up poorly educated at best.

scott said: Of course the State *was* out of the education business for quite some time. For instance the time during the Enlightenment, when much of our Western ideas we refined and put to paper.

So you hold up the 18th Century as a shining educational example - where only the rich had anything passing for an education and the poor were destined to be either factory fodder or cannon fodder? What a strange slogan for a Libertarian: Education is for the Rich!

scott said: I wonder how those nightmarishly uneducated homeschooled twits ever managed to do anything?

Because those who actually *did* anything where 'homeschooled' often by very expensive tutors. 'Homeschooling' for the poor consisted of learning how to till fields or work in dangerous factories. In other words follow their fathers profession or (if female) get married and start producing babies. Do you *really* want to turn the clock back 200+ years?

State education was conceived for many (often dubious) reasons but whatever its failings it has managed to raise the average educational standards of whole populations. Before then only the gifted and the rich had much education at all. I would hardly call that an inspiring example. What we need to do is *improve* State education not destroy it!

Thomas Fummo said...

to quote the Joker in Alan Moore's The Killing Joke, wasn't world war one started over a bunch of telegraph poles?

narf narf!

seriously though, I must've read A.C. Grayling's 'The Meaning of things: applying philosophy to life' about a thousand times.

way to start a debate, CK ;-P

Scott said...

I agree that killing people for their beliefs is a pretty good definition of insanity. I don't know that we should go to war just to stop two groups killing each other though....

scott said: NazISM didn't harm anyone, Nazis did.

..and...

What I'm getting at is that I'm not sure I agree with the statement "The war against Nazism was a justified war."

WW2 wasn't fought over ideology (in the main). We went to war against the Axis powers because they attacked our Allies, killed loads of people & bombed our cities. Though objectionable their ideology was very much a secondary matter.


I don't know how else to phrase what I said. Your author made the claim the war was fought over ideology, not me. I was disagreeing with that statement, or rather than the notion that fighting a war over ideology is justified. So... we agree?

Because removing sources of intolerence should lead to more tolerance... shouldn't it?

No, having ideas that are better than intolerance should lead to more tolerance. You can't kill an idea and once people feel like their being oppressed because their culture is being distorted by a government with a monopoly on the use of force, they will eventually fight back.

I think segregated schooling of any kind is a huge mistake - especially when people are segregated on religious or ideological grounds. Such schooling can only cause unecessary division. Secular societies should certainly not encourage such schools in any way and (I think) should actively work to eliminate them.

Right, so you agree with the idea of a homogenized and institutionalized society. One free of any discernable differences. I understand this is the ultimate goal of public education, but obviously not something I can agree with as a liberal.

..and how many people have the time, energy, resources or commitment to *fully* educate their own children? Very few I wager. If I was educated at home its pretty certain that I would never have gone to University and would probably ended up working on building sites, living from job to job and largely wasting what potential I have. The State may not educate to a high enough standard but at least it educates to a largely adequate one. Left in the hands of their parents most children would end up poorly educated at best.

I see, well I doubt very much I can say much to change the mind of a person with such disdain for working on building sites (which I do, btw, and WAS educated at a public school, hmmmmm) or a person with such disdain for the abilities of the common people. I would point out though that I would never claim that only homeschooling should exist. Actually all forms of education should exist, even ones that we haven't been able to think of yet because we've spent the past century homogenizing and institutionalizing "education" into a thing that happens to children when their sent to a government holding tank and talked at for 6-8 hours a day.

So you hold up the 18th Century as a shining educational example - where only the rich had anything passing for an education and the poor were destined to be either factory fodder or cannon fodder? What a strange slogan for a Libertarian: Education is for the Rich!

Right, good straw man. Of course, education is for the Rich(!) is *EXACTLY* the system we use today as anyone who actually looks at the thing can tell you. Where ,since we all "share" the cost of "education" (i.e. sending out kids to the big brick buildings to be talked at), communities that have money have superior schools to those that don't. And calling one of our inner city buildings a "school" meets the definition only by the most cynical application of the word. Any parents with even the beginnings of a few extra dollars in income pull their kids out of these places as soon as possible to put them in private (yes, even religious schools *gasp*), that is in the well to do neighborhoods who have the nicer public schools.

The poorer neighborhoods are stuck with what they get in terms of so-called education. Oh, they PAY for their education, to the tune of several times what it would cost for a private education, but they're clearly to stupid, lazy, and poor to make proper decisions about their child's education.

Because those who actually *did* anything where 'homeschooled' often by very expensive tutors. 'Homeschooling' for the poor consisted of learning how to till fields or work in dangerous factories. In other words follow their fathers profession or (if female) get married and start producing babies. Do you *really* want to turn the clock back 200+ years?

No, what I want to do it progress, not just stick to what the State has told us is proper education for the past century. What you describe is a early industrial situation. It's ridiculous to think the only thing keeping post-industrial middle class families from sending their children to factories is the State.

CyberKitten said...

I seem to have hit a nerve.....

scott said: I was disagreeing with that statement, or rather than the notion that fighting a war over ideology is justified. So... we agree?

We can agree that fighting wars over ideas is stupid, yes....

scott said: No, having ideas that are better than intolerance should lead to more tolerance.

Ideas such as......? Liberalism? Democracy? Doesn't seem to be working out that way....

scott said: You can't kill an idea..

Oh, I think you can... or at least reduce it to impotence.

scott said: once people feel like their being oppressed because their culture is being distorted by a government with a monopoly on the use of force, they will eventually fight back.

Well, Governments don't have a *monopoly* on the use of force - they just have much more access to it - except maybe in failed states where no one has a monopoly. Most sub-groups within a society can certainly claim to being oppressed (and do) but what they usually mean is that they can't get their own way. Often this is a good thing. Marginalised groups might indeed 'fight back' if they are willing to and might even gain concessions but that would really depend on what kind of support they can get from other people.

scott said: I understand this is the ultimate goal of public education, but obviously not something I can agree with as a liberal.

It might be a 'goal' of public education but its honestly a utopian one - in other words completely unachievable. If you think that public education can *actually* produce a homogenised society you're giving it *far* too much credit.

scott said: well I doubt very much I can say much to change the mind of a person with such disdain for working on building sites

[laughs] Oh, I sure that it is a noble pursuit - just not for me! Nor is working on a factory production line for 45 years. I know it sounds fascinating but the idea of it doesn't really float my boat I'm afraid.

scott said: or a person with such disdain for the abilities of the common people.

Actually I find many of them very capable.... It's just that I doubt very much if many of them would have the ability to educate their children very well. I know for a fact that it would've been beyond the capabilities of my parents - however much they would have wished to be capable educators. I'm guessing that I would not be alone in this assessment.

scott said: Actually all forms of education should exist, even ones that we haven't been able to think of yet

I'm guessing that new forms of education will emerge from time to time and variations on those themes too.... Which is all very well as long as they actually educate to a reasonable standard.

scott said: Of course, education is for the Rich(!) is *EXACTLY* the system we use today as anyone who actually looks at the thing can tell you.

The rich probably have more educational opportunities certainly - better equiped schools, better facilities, better teachers. But the elimination of state education (which it seemed you were proposing previously) would not address any of these issues. The clear failings of state education should be rectified rather than used as an excuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater....

scott said: No, what I want to do it progress, not just stick to what the State has told us is proper education for the past century.

Oh, I think state education has changed out of all recognition in the last 100 years!

scott said: What you describe is a early industrial situation.

It was you who brought up the Enlightenment and seemed to be holding it up as some kind of educational nirvana....

scott said: It's ridiculous to think the only thing keeping post-industrial middle class families from sending their children to factories is the State.

Nor am I saying that. Actually the state education system - certainly in England - was created in order to *produce* half-educated working class drones for the growing number of factories sprouting up in the Industrial Revolution.

BTW - You mentioned the middle class (as does Obama regularly). Don't you have a working class over there? Over here the middle class mainly work if offices & such...

Scott said...

You're right about the government and force, what I should have said was the government has a monopoly on the *legitimate* use of force. My apologies.

Over here people who the line between working and middle classes is pretty blurred. You can work in a factory or on job sites and easily make a middle class wages (60-85k a year). Journeyman carpenters for the company I work for pull in over 100k easily.

CyberKitten said...

scott said: You're right about the government and force, what I should have said was the government has a monopoly on the *legitimate* use of force.

Especially as it is the State that decides what is 'legitimate' [grin]

scott said: You can work in a factory or on job sites and easily make a middle class wages (60-85k a year). Journeyman carpenters for the company I work for pull in over 100k easily.

Ah... Over here, as far as I can tell, its more about occupation and attitude than it is about take-home pay. There are a few crude indicators though - like if you get paid monthly or weekly.... O~f course there are those who think we live in a classless society... and those who have said that society itself does not exist - so it might all come down to definitions in the end.